Learning in Youth in Action. Interim Transnational Analysis

Results from the surveys with project participants and project leaders in May 2012 Interim Transnational Analysis Helmut Fennes with Susanne Gadinger Wolfgang Hagleitner Katharina Lunardon Research Project Direction: Lynne Chisholm Innsbruck, 2013

Youth in Action is a programme of the European Union supporting European youth projects. The Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of the Youth in Action Programme (RAY) is conducted by the RAY Network, which currently includes the Youth in Action National Agencies and their research partners in 15 countries. This study was implemented by the Institute of Educational Science at the University of Innsbruck and the Generation and Educational Science Institute in Austria in cooperation with the National Agencies and their research partners in Austria, Belgium (Flemish speaking community), Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Finland, France, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and Turkey. The RAY Network members in France and German participated only in the survey in November 2012. National research reports can be requested from the respective National Agencies and their research partners. The study is being funded with contributions from the National Agencies in the respective countries. This report reflects the views only of its authors, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 by Lynne Chisholm, Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. This document can be retrieved from http://www.uibk.ac.at/bgl/projects_networks/projekte.html.en#p14 Version 20130510 ISBN 978-3-902863-04-1 2 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Table of contents List of tables... 2 List of figures... 4 Abbreviations and glossary... 5 1 Executive summary... 7 2 Introduction... 12 2.1 The RAY Network... 12 2.2 Research approach and activities... 12 2.3 Concept for this study... 13 2.4 Analysis of surveys in May 2012... 17 3 First conclusions... 18 3.1 Effects of Youth in Action projects... 18 3.2 Methods applied in YiA projects... 19 3.3 Learning of participants in YiA projects... 23 3.4 Learning of project leaders in YiA projects... 26 3.5 Learning of YiA participants in everyday life... 29 4 Bibliography... 32 5 Appendix A Tables... 34 5.1 Samples... 34 5.2 Profiles... 38 5.3 Implementation of the project... 56 5.4 Effects of the projects... 59 5.5 Project methods and settings... 63 5.6 Learning in everyday life... 78 6 Appendix B Methodology... 82 6.1 Implementation of the survey... 82 6.2 Samples... 84 6.3 Limitations of the survey... 84 6.4 Presentation of results... 85 7 Appendix C Documentation of the surveys and of the modification of the data sets... 87 8 Appendix D Research partners... 91

List of tables Table 1: Number of participants by country of residence (PP)... 34 Table 2: Number of participants by project venue country (PP)... 34 Table 3: Number of participants by funding country (PP)... 34 Table 4: Number of participants by project type and by hosting/sending (PP)... 35 Table 5: Number of participants by project type comparison 2011 and 2012 (PP)... 35 Table 6: Number of participants by hosting/sending comparison 2011 and 2012 (PP)... 35 Table 7: Number of project leaders by country of residence (PL)... 36 Table 8: Number of project leaders by project venue country (PL)... 36 Table 9: Number of project leaders by funding country (PL)... 36 Table 10: Number of project leaders by project type and by hosting/sending (PL)... 37 Table 11: Number of project leaders by project type comparison 2011 and 2012 (PL)... 37 Table 12: Number of project leaders by hosting/sending comparison 2011 and 2012 (PL)... 37 Table 13: Number of participants by gender comparison 2011 and 2012... 38 Table 14: Number of participants by gender and by project type (PP)... 38 Table 15: Number of participants by gender and by age group (PP)... 38 Table 16: Number of participants by project type and by age group (PP)... 39 Table 17: Highest educational attainment by project type (PP)... 39 Table 18: Highest educational attainment by age group (PP)... 40 Table 19: Highest educational attainment comparison 2011 and 2012... 40 Table 20: Educational attainment participants expect to achieve (PP)... 40 Table 21: Highest educational attainment of the father/male legal guardian (PP)... 41 Table 22: Highest educational attainment of the mother/female legal guardian (PP)... 41 Table 23: Other languages than the first language/mother tongue participants can communicate in (PP)... 41 Table 24: Other languages than the first language/mother tongue participants can communicate in by project type (PP)... 42 Table 25: Is the language mainly spoken in the family of origin an official language of the country of residence of the participant? (PP)... 42 Table 26: Other languages spoken in the participant s family of origin (PP)... 42 Table 27: Affiliation to a cultural, ethnic, religious or linguistic minority (PP)... 42 Table 28: Living environment of participants (PP)... 43 Table 29: Occupation of participants at the time of the project (PP)... 43 Table 30: Education or training status of participants at the time of the project (PP)... 43 Table 31: Occupation of participants at the time of the project by age group (PP)... 44 Table 32: Education or training status of participants at the time of the project by age group (PP)... 44 Table 33: Previous travels abroad of participants (PP)... 44 Table 34: The longest period spent abroad (PP)... 45 Table 35: Reasons for previous travels abroad of participants (PP)... 45 Table 36: Previous participation in similar projects (PP)... 45 Table 37: Number of similar projects participants had taken part in (PP)... 45 Table 38: Compared to the way other people live in your country do you think (PP)... 46 Table 39: Compared to the way other people live in your country do you think by project type (PP)... 46 Table 40: Obstacles of participants in their access to education, work and employment, active participation in society and politics, and mobility (PP)... 47 Table 41: Young people with fewer opportunities participating in the projects (PL)... 47 Table 42: Number of project leaders by gender comparison 2011 and 2012 (PL)... 48 Table 43: Number of project leaders by gender and project type (PL)... 48 2 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 44: Age of project leaders (PL)... 48 Table 45: Foreign language skills of project leaders (PL)... 48 Table 46: Highest educational attainment of project leaders by project type (PL)... 49 Table 47: Highest educational attainment of project leaders comparison 2011 and 2012... 49 Table 48: Educational attainment project leaders expect to achieve (PL)... 49 Table 49: Qualifications of project leaders (PL)... 50 Table 50: Qualifications of project leaders/2 (PL)... 50 Table 51: Project leaders previous involvement in EU youth programmes (PL)... 50 Table 52: Project leaders previous involvement in EU youth programmes as participants (PL).. 51 Table 53: Involvement in the project on a voluntary or employed basis (PL)... 51 Table 54: Involvement in the project on a voluntary or employed basis by project type (PL)... 51 Table 55: Project leader role/function in the project (PL)... 52 Table 56: Project leader role/function in the project by project type (PL)... 52 Table 57: Project leader involvement in the project extent (PL)... 53 Table 58: Project leader involvement in the project (extent) by project type (PL)... 53 Table 59: Type of organisation/group/body (PL)... 54 Table 60: Type of organisation/group/body by project type (PL)... 54 Table 61: Focus of organisation/group/body (PL)... 55 Table 62: Paying participation fees (PP)... 56 Table 63: Language(s) used in the project (PP)... 56 Table 64: Language(s) used in the project by sending/hosting (PP)... 56 Table 65: Satisfaction with the project (PP)... 56 Table 66: Intention to participate in a similar project in the future (PP)... 56 Table 67: Reasons to participate in a similar project in the future (PP)... 57 Table 68: Reasons to participate in a similar project in the future by project type (PP)... 58 Table 69: Skills development of participants (PP)... 59 Table 70: Skills development of participants perception by project leaders (PL)... 60 Table 71: Skills development of participants self-perception by participants (PP) and perception by the project leaders (PL) comparison 2011 and 2012... 61 Table 72: Skills development of project leaders (PL)... 62 Table 73: Methods used in the project/1 perception by participants (PP)... 63 Table 74: Methods used in the project/1 (perception by participants) by previous similar project experience (PP)... 63 Table 75: Methods used in the project/2 perception by project leaders (PL)... 64 Table 76: Methods used in the project/2 (perception by project leaders) by previous experience of project leaders (PL)... 65 Table 77: Methods used in the project /3 (PP)... 66 Table 78: Methods used in the project /3 (PL)... 66 Table 79: Methods used in the project /3 by project type (PP)... 67 Table 80: Methods used in the project /3 by project type (PL)... 68 Table 81: Activities and situations in the project (PP)... 69 Table 82: Activities and situations in the project (PL)... 69 Table 83: Activities and situations in the project by project type (PP)... 70 Table 84: Activities and situations in the project by project type (PL)... 71 Table 85: Percentage of project time allocated to types of activities (PP)... 72 Table 86: Percentage of project time allocated to types of activities (PL)... 72 Table 87: Learning of participants in the project (PP)... 73 Table 88: Learning of participants in the project (PL)... 74 Table 89: Involvement of project leaders in project activities by project type (PL)... 75 Table 90: Involvement of project leaders in project activities (PL)... 76 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 3

Table 91: Involvement of project leaders in project activities by role/function in the project (PL)... 76 Table 92: Learning of project leaders in the project (PL)... 77 Table 93: Learning of participants in everyday life/1 (PP)... 78 Table 94: Learning of participants in everyday life/1 by occupation (PP)... 80 Table 95: Learning of participants in everyday life/2 (PP)... 81 List of figures Figure 1: Methods used in the project/1 (perception by participants) by previous similar project experience (PP)... 64 Figure 2: Methods used in the project/2 (perception by project leaders) by previous experience of project leaders (PL)... 65 Figure 3: Learning of participants in everyday life/1 comparison with Eurobarometer 59 (PP)... 79 4 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Abbreviations and glossary YiA Youth in Action Programme PL Project leaders/members of project teams PP Project participants RAY Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action. The RAY Network consists of the Youth in Action National Agencies and their research partners involved in the RAY project. NA National Agency Project leaders Youth workers, youth leaders, trainers or other actors who prepared and implemented YiA projects for/with young people or youth workers/leaders, at least in an education/socio-pedagogic function, but frequently also with an organisational function; normally, in particular in the case of projects with participants from two or more different countries, these projects are prepared and implemented by project teams with two or more project leaders. Type of project (also project type ) The analyses partly differentiate by type of project combining Youth Exchanges from Action 1.1 and Action 3.1 and combining training and networking activities from Action 4.3 and Action 3.1; combining these similar types of sub-actions (the main difference being the eligible countries) results in higher numbers of respondents in the respective categories and, thus, in more meaningful results. YE Youth Exchanges (Action 1.1 and 3.1) YI Youth Initiatives (Action 1.2) YD Youth Democracy Projects (Action 1.3) EVS European Voluntary Service T&N Training and Networking (Action 4.3 and 3.1) TCP SD Training and Cooperation Plan Structured Dialogue meetings of young people and those responsible for youth policy (Action 5.1) Residence country Funding country Venue country Sending Hosting Country of residence at the beginning of the project (the country of the partner organisation who the participant was part of) Country in which a project was funded through the respective National Agency of YiA Country in which one or more core activities within a project in particular meetings of young people or of youth workers/leaders (in most cases from different countries of origin) took place; also referred to as hosting country This refers to PP or PL who came from a sending partner, i.e., they went to another country for their project This refers to PP or PL who came from a hosting partner, i.e., they were involved in a project taking place in their residence country Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 5

YiA Programme countries: These are EU member states, EEA countries and EU candidate/accession countries YiA Partner countries: These are countries from Southeast Europe, countries from Eastern Europe and the Caucasus region as well as Mediterranean countries. RAY countries RAY Network members participating in these surveys (= funding countries) Country codes: AT Austria BE Belgium BG Bulgaria CZ the Czech Republic DE Germany EE Estonia FI Finland FR France HU Hungary LI Liechtenstein LU Luxembourg PL Poland SE Sweden SK Slovakia TR Turkey Key competences for lifelong learning KC Key competence KC1 Communication in the mother tongue KC2 Communication in the mother tongue KC3 Mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology KC3a Mathematical competence KC3b Basic competences in science and technology KC4 Digital competence KC5 Learning competence (learning to learn) KC6 Social and civic competences KC6a Interpersonal and social competence KC6b Intercultural competence KC6c Civic competence KC7 Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship KC7a Sense of initiative KC7b Sense of entrepreneurship KC8 Cultural awareness and expression ML Media literacy 6 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 1 Executive summary This study was implemented as part of the project Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of the Youth in Action Programme (RAY) which aims to explore the effects of the Youth in Action Programme (YiA) of the European Union, in particular on young people, youth workers and youth leaders involved in the projects funded by it, but also on the organisations, groups and other bodies promoting it as well as on the local environments and communities where these projects take place. The RAY project aims to study these effects in general, not only with respect to the explicit intentions of the YiA Programme, therefore seeking to contribute to the generation of new knowledge about the processes and outcomes of non-formal education activities, in particular in the youth field, but at the same time aiming to contribute to quality assurance and development in the implementation of the YiA Programme and to evidence-based and research-informed youth policy development. The RAY project, founded in 2008, involves National Agencies of the YiA Programme and their research partners in presently 15 countries. The research on the YiA Programme is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative social research methods. As a first activity, online surveys using multilingual questionnaires for young people participating in YiA projects and for youth workers/youth leaders were developed in order to study the effects of YiA projects on the actors involved, including the effects on their organisations and local communities, and also to study the implementation of the projects as well as the profile of the actors and organisations involved. These standard surveys have been implemented since 2009 and will continue to be used until the end of the YiA Programme. The transnational analyses of the surveys conducted between October 2009 and May 2011 are available (see Fennes, Gadinger, & Hagleitner, 2012; Fennes, Hagleitner, & Helling, 2011). In 2012, a special study was developed aiming to explore the learning processes of actors involved in YiA projects: how do participants and project leaders learn in YiA projects and which settings, educational approaches, methodologies and methods contribute to learning in YiA projects? For this study, a Special Survey using multilingual online questionnaires was developed and implemented in 2012. Furthermore, qualitative research methods interviews with project leaders and focus groups with project participants are being and will be implemented during the first half of 2013 in order to produce additional findings and provide a deeper analysis of the survey findings. A full report is scheduled to be ready during the second half of 2013. The present report represents an interim transnational analysis of the special surveys conducted within the framework of the RAY project in May 2012 by National Agencies and their research partners in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium (Flemish-speaking community), Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and Turkey 1, coordinated by the Institute of Educational Science at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. More than 9,500 project participants and 1,500 project leaders and members of project teams (referred to further on as project leaders ) were invited to complete a questionnaire aimed at exploring how learning takes place in projects funded by the YiA Programme. Around 30% of the participants and around 45% of the project leaders invited to take part in the surveys completed the respective questionnaires (one for the participants and one for the project leaders). For this transnational analysis, only a proportion of these responses could be used in order to arrive at a coherent set of respondents (2,038 participants and 503 project leaders; see chapter 7). 1 Germany and France participated only in the special survey in November 2012. Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 7

The samples of the survey in May 2012 are, in principle, comparable with the samples of the surveys in 2010/11 with respect to gender, educational attainment, distribution by project types and distribution by sending/hosting. This implies that, whenever applicable, the results of the surveys in 2010/11 and in May 2012 are largely comparable. Competence development Participants as well as project leaders report to have developed skills related to key competences for lifelong learning through their involvement in a YiA project. With respect to the competence development of participants, the responses to the special survey correlate highly and very significantly with those to the standard surveys in 2010/11 (see Fennes et al., 2012): the most distinct development is reported for skills related to interpersonal, social and intercultural competence as well as to communication in a foreign language; a significant development is also reported for skills related to sense of entrepreneurship, civic competence, cultural awareness and expression, and learning competence (learning to learn), as well as for skills related to communication in the first language (mother tongue), mathematical competence and sense of initiative. 2 This suggests that YiA projects contribute to a broad scope of key competences, on the one hand competences related to active citizenship as well as to participation in public life and civil society, on the other hand competences which are not directly linked to the objectives of the YiA programme. Similar to the participants, also the project leaders report the development of skills related to the key competences for lifelong learning. Also here, the responses from 2010/11 are comparable to those from May 2012: project leaders report the most distinct development for skills related to communication in a foreign language, interpersonal, social, intercultural and civic competence as well as to sense of entrepreneurship and communication in the first language (mother tongue) which shows a similar pattern as the competence development reported by participants. Furthermore, project leaders also report that through their involvement in YiA projects they developed youth work competences, in particular with respect to non-formal education and international youth projects. Overall, this reflects that Youth in Action contributes to the professional development of youth workers and youth leaders and thus to learning organisations. Youth in Action a space for new learning experiences A majority of participants report that their project used exercises, games and methods that were new to them. Similarly, a majority of project leaders report that during their project they had applied exercises, games and methods for the first time. This indicates that YiA projects are a space for trying out and experiencing new educational/learning methods a laboratory for training/teaching and learning for both participants and project leaders. And these projects also provide for successful learning spaces: a considerable majority of participants indicate that these methods addressed important topics and triggered their interest for them, that they helped them to learn something more easily, and that they consider them to be suited also for school or university. Only a very small proportion of participants thought that the methods used were useless for learning something valuable or that they were somewhat childish. 2 Some of the eight key competences defined in the European reference framework for key competences for lifelong learning were divided into sub-competences. In particular, interpersonal, social, intercultural and civic competence was divided into three sub-competences: interpersonal and social, intercultural and civic. 8 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 The learning continuum 3 in Youth in Action projects Participants and project leaders report that between 40% and 50% of the project time was dedicated to activities which are mostly in line with non-formal education/learning methods: between 20% and 25% of the project time was dedicated to activities which rather would correspond to formal education/learning methods (i.e., listening to and engaging with presentations/inputs given by experts or group/project leaders ); around 20% of the project time was not part of the project programme, providing opportunities primarily for informal learning. This indicates that YiA projects offer a broad spectrum of learning opportunities between more formal education activities on one end and more informal learning situations on the other, thus covering the full learning continuum, with around half of the activities in the non-formal education/learning bracket. Specific learning situations, methods and activities in Youth in Action projects YiA projects are characterised by a broad variety of learning situations, methods and activities applied in each project: participants as well as project leaders selected on average more than 7 out of 11 methods they could choose from, and each of the methods mentioned was selected by more than half of the participants/project leaders. The biggest proportions of specific methods applied in YiA projects are shown for discussions, followed by presentations/input by participants and presentations/input by experts, thus indicating, on the one hand, a frequent use of rather traditional methods, on the other hand a participatory approach with a large majority of projects involving participants in presentations. Remarkable is the high percentage of projects providing for individual reflection or reflection in a group, which suggests that a large majority of project leaders considers reflection to support learning processes. Ranking high are also outdoor or sports activities, indicating that these are applied as non-formal learning methods. Furthermore, experiential learning methods are applied in a considerable majority of projects (role plays, simulations, field exercises, trying out what has been learned), as well as mentoring by members of the project team, artistic methods and using digital or online media the latter suggesting that blended learning 4 has found its way also into non-formal education. Learning of participants in YiA projects The responses indicate that in YiA projects the participants develop skills related to key competences through a combination of non-formal, informal and rather formal education/learning methods and settings; the participants indicate that they developed a specific skill in a combination of, on average, three different situations or activities. Non-formal education methods and activities which were part of the programme play the most dominant role, followed by informal experiences with people in and around the project, confirming the relevance of informal situations and settings for learning and competence development in general. In particular, the responses indicate that the development of citizenship/civic skills is strongly supported through informal learning. Furthermore, reflecting/talking about the experiences during or after the project, taking part in the organisation of the project and applying what one has learned in the project are reported to contribute considerably to the development of selected skills for lifelong learning, thus confirming the relevance of reflection, a participatory approach, and of practical experience for learning. 3 See section 2.3, Theoretical background, page 14. 4 A combination of face-to-face learning methods and e-learning/computer-supported learning Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 9

Learning of project leaders in YiA projects Project leaders report that they were involved in a broad scope of tasks and activities related to the development and implementation of their project: on average, each project leader reports to have been involved in at least six out of the eight types of project leader activities, implying that a large majority of project leaders were involved in a broad scope of activities in which workrelated learning could take place at least potentially. Similar to the participants, project leaders report to have developed skills related to key competences for lifelong learning through a combination of different types of activities they implemented in their role as project leaders: they indicate that they developed a specific skill in a combination of, on average, three to four different project leader activities. Overall, project leaders report to have developed the skills in question best through activities which are directly linked to designing, developing and implementing the project, in particular when implementing project activities with/for participants, and also during organisational and administrative tasks. Designing the project, cooperating with youth workers from other countries and implementing project activities for/with participants are reported to be very effective for work-related learning in YiA projects. Learning of YiA participants in everyday life Participants also reported that they learned something during the twelve months before the survey in a range of contexts and situations in everyday life (thus also outside the YiA project they were involved in) covering the full scope between formal, non-formal and informal learning contexts as well as work-related learning. Informal learning contexts play an important role for all participants and a dominant role for those who are unemployed, not in paid work or volunteers. Obviously, school, college or university are more relevant learning contexts for those in education or training, and work/the workplace are more relevant learning contexts for those who are working. For the latter also non-formal learning contexts (i.e. training courses) play a relevant role. Also in everyday life, participants report having developed skills related to key competences for lifelong learning in a combination of different everyday life situations on average in three to four situations for each of the skills in question. The situation mentioned most frequently for developing these skills is a non-formal/informal learning situation: in an association, civil society organisations, doing voluntary work or projects, etc.; formal education situations (at school, university or college) rank only in second place. Further relevant situations for developing these skills are informal and non-formal learning situations such as studying, travelling, working or living abroad, when being with friends or family or when attending training courses, seminars, workshops, etc. Differentiated analyses by project types A differentiated analysis by project types shows considerable differences between project types with respect to types of methods, project activities, situations occurring in the projects, and the distribution of informal, non-formal and rather formal situations/activities/methods. This suggests that different educational approaches are applied for different project types, some of them showing a broader or smaller scope of situations/activities/methods, some project types showing more rather formal situations/activities/methods and others less, some applying more 10 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 participatory approaches and others less. The different educational approaches applied by project leaders might well be challenged by the analyses provided in this study. Coherence of responses The responses to this survey show a considerable coherence with respect to many aspects: a coherence of responses within the participant survey and within the project leaders survey, where responses to one question are coherent with responses to another question; a coherence of responses of participants (self-perception) with the responses of project leaders (external perception with respect to the participants); a coherence of responses to the standard survey in 2010/11 and to the special survey in May 2012, where applicable. Whenever possible, the correlation was analysed and proved to be very high and very significant in most cases. Further research activities At the time of writing this report, a qualitative study involving interviews with project leaders and focus groups with participants is being conducted complementary to the online surveys in order to allow for a more in-depth analysis of the processes and outcomes of projects funded by the YiA Programme. Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 11

2 Introduction What are the effects of the European Union (EU) Youth in Action (YiA) Programme on young people, youth workers and youth leaders involved in the projects funded by this programme? What and how do they learn through their participation in these projects? Which competences do they develop and how? Which specific contexts, settings, conditions, educational approaches, methodologies and methods are successful in fostering the development of key competences for lifelong learning in Youth in Action projects? What are the effects on youth groups, organisations, institutions, structures and communities involved in the programme? And how does the programme contribute to the achievement of the objectives and priorities of the YiA Programme, in particular to the promotion of active/democratic citizenship and participation in civil society, tolerance, solidarity and understanding between young people in different countries, the inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities and the development of quality and networking in youth work? These and other questions are addressed and studied through the Research-based Analysis of Youth in Action (RAY), implemented by the RAY Network a network of YiA National Agencies and their research partners currently in 15 European countries. The aims and objectives of RAY are as follows: to contribute to quality assurance and development in the implementation of the YiA Programme; to contribute to evidence-based and research-informed youth policy development; to develop a better understanding about the processes and outcomes of non-formal education activities, in particular in the youth field. 2.1 The RAY Network The RAY Network was founded on the initiative of the Austrian National Agency of the YiA Programme in order to develop joint transnational research activities related to YiA in line with the aims and objectives outlined above. A first network meeting took place in Austria in June 2008. Since then, network meetings have taken place twice a year for the purpose of developing and coordinating the network s research activities and their implementation. Currently the RAY Network involves the National Agencies and their research partners from 15 countries: Austria, Belgium (Flemish-speaking community), Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden and Turkey. 5 2.2 Research approach and activities In principle, the research on the programme and its activities envisages a combination of quantitative and qualitative social research methods and instruments: surveys with project participants, project leaders and key staff of beneficiary organisations as well as with applicant organisations that were rejected; case studies of selected projects; interviews and focus groups with different actors involved in the YiA Programme as well as with youth leaders and youth workers not participating in the programme. 5 The Netherlands had taken part in the RAY surveys until November 2011 but did not participate in the RAY activities in 2012. 12 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Based on concepts and research instruments created by the Institute of Educational Science at the University of Innsbruck in Austria (the research partner of the Austrian National Agency of the YiA Programme), two multilingual online questionnaires, currently in 14 languages, were developed one for participants and one for project leaders of YiA-funded projects. Between October 2009 and November 2011, more than 50,000 participants and project leaders of YiA projects were invited to take part in RAY online surveys and more than 15,000 people completed the respective questionnaires. These standard surveys will be continued by the RAY Network on a regular basis for the whole duration of the YiA Programme. Complementary special surveys should focus on special issues related to the YiA Programme. In particular, a special survey on learning in YiA projects in particular on conditions, contexts, methodologies and methods fostering learning was developed in 2011/2012 and implemented in May and November 2012 in 15 countries and in 14 languages. The present paper presents conclusions resulting from the surveys in May 2012. Complementary to the special surveys in May and November 2012, a joint approach and methodology using qualitative methods at national level (interviews with project leaders and focus groups with participants), aimed at validating the results of the surveys and exploring the research questions, was developed in 2012 and is being implemented in 2013. An integrated transnational analysis of the outcomes of surveys in May and November 2012 and of the qualitative studies conducted in 2013 is scheduled for the second half of 2013. 2.3 Concept for this study At the RAY Network meeting in June 2011, it was agreed to design and implement a study on conditions and contexts supporting learning and the development of key competences in Youth in Action projects and beyond. In particular, it is of interest how key competences are developed in a combination of formal, non-formal and informal learning contexts and settings, and which competences are developed best in which contexts and settings, in particular in Youth in Action projects. Research questions The general research questions are: How are key competences developed in Youth in Action projects, in particular those which are reported by participants and project leaders to have been developed? How do actors involved in Youth in Action projects develop key competences in general? How do the findings from this study contribute to theory development on the topic of competence development through non-formal and informal learning? How could the findings from this study contribute to practice development, in particular in view of the implementation of the future Youth Programme of the European Union? Specific research questions: Which learning contexts and settings emerge in Youth in Action projects for both project participants and project leaders/team members? Which educational approaches, methodologies and methods are applied (explicitly or implicitly) in Youth in Action projects? How do project design, educational approaches, methodology and methods contribute to learning and competence development in Youth in Action projects? Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 13

Which specific contexts, settings, conditions, educational approaches, methodologies and methods and which combinations of these are successful in fostering the development of specific key competences in Youth in Action projects and beyond? In particular, which contexts, settings, conditions, educational approaches, methodologies and methods and which combinations of these are successful in fostering competences for active and democratic citizenship, including intercultural competence, participation competence, the competence to foster inclusion and the competences to act against discrimination, intolerance, xenophobia and racism? Specifically with respect to the competence development of project leaders/team members triggered through their involvement in a YiA project: which settings, situations, activities and experiences and which combinations of these are successful in fostering the development of specific key competences? Methods The following mix of methods was designed in order to provide for triangulation and validation of the data collected through them: Online surveys ask project participants about the learning situations they were confronted with in the YiA projects they are being asked about, about their self-perception of situations in which they developed specific competences and about their self-perception of situations during the previous 12 months in which they had developed specific competences. Furthermore, socio-demographic data is collected (using the respective questions in the standard surveys) in order to provide for differentiated analyses. Online surveys ask project leaders/team members about the learning situations they created in the YiA projects they are being asked about, about their perception of situations in which the participants developed specific competences, about their selfperception of situations in which they themselves developed specific competences. Furthermore, socio-demographic data is collected (using the respective questions of the standard surveys) in order to provide for differentiated analyses. Focus groups with project participants and semi-structured interviews with project leaders and team members are used to illuminate more in-depth the issues addressed in the specific research questions. For these, guidelines with minimum standards as well as with optional additional standards have been established in order to provide for a coordinated and joint methodological approach. Fifteen RAY Network partners participated in the special online surveys. Participation in the qualitative study depends on resources available in the different RAY countries and is, therefore, optional and are planned to be conducted in nine countries. Subsequently, this might not allow for a fully integrated research approach, but for a summative transnational analysis the approach is considered to be appropriate. Theoretical background RAY studies indicate that participation in YiA projects contributes to the development of key competences for lifelong learning in both participants and project leaders/team members (see Fennes et al., 2012, 2011). Since YiA projects apply mostly a non-formal education and learning approach, methodology and methods, complemented by informal learning and sometimes more formal elements, generally in non-formal and informal learning settings and contexts, it can be assumed that the learning and competence development in YiA projects happens through a 14 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 combination of and interaction between informal, non-formal and sometimes rather formal settings and activities. This corresponds with contemporary research which places non-formal learning on a learning continuum between formal and informal learning, where an educational/learning activity can combine a range of features, of which some are more characteristic of formal learning settings than of non-formal or informal ones and vice versa (see Chisholm, 2006; Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2003). Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm (2003) have developed a list of twenty criteria distinguishing between formal and informal learning and have grouped them in four clusters (process; location and setting; purposes; content). In her evaluation report of the Advanced Training for Trainers in Europe, Chisholm (2006) reformulates these criteria and places each criterion into one of the four clusters to which it is most closely related in order to analyse this specific training programme with respect to its position on the learning continuum. The learning continuum as described above comprises three types of learning contexts as specified in the box below: The learning continuum Formal learning Learning typically provided by an education or training institution, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and leading to certification. Formal learning is intentional from the learner s perspective. Non-formal learning Learning that is not provided by an education or training institution and typically does not lead to certification. It is, however, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support). Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner s perspective. Informal learning Learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and typically does not lead to certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases it is non-intentional (or incidental /random). (source: European Commission, 2000, 2001) These three types of learning are in the end neither completely distinct nor do they entirely exclude each other nor do they have clear boundaries between them. They rather represent archetypical constructions along the continuum between formality and informality (see Chisholm & Fennes, 2008). It is, therefore, not surprising that numerous definitions of non-formal education exist which differ from each other in different facets with respect to process, location and setting, purposes and content (see Colley et al., 2003; Council of Europe, 2001: Appendix). Furthermore, different contexts can combine informal, non-formal and formal learning. For instance, formal education contexts can also provide for non-formal and informal learning, e.g., Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 15

through extra-curricular activities such as excursions or project work, or simply during breaks when the learners have an unstructured exchange. Non-formal education provision also can include more formal elements such as a curriculum (which might be referred to as concept or programme ) or lectures for knowledge transfer (which might be referred to as inputs or presentations ), but it can equally be relatively unstructured and display a high degree of informality. The final report of the Council of Europe s Symposium on non-formal education in 2001 (Council of Europe, 2001) outlines common elements in existing definitions of non-formal education as well as essential features and methods of non-formal training and learning with a special focus on the youth sector, thus describing a range in the learning continuum that could be called non-formal education and learning in the youth field (see box below). Nevertheless, while some of these features are specific for the youth sector, many of them are reflected also in other non-formal education sectors, e.g., in adult education and in community education. Features of non-formal learning in the youth sector Common elements in existing definitions of non-formal learning purposive learning diverse contexts different and lighter organisation of provision and delivery alternative/complementary teaching and learning styles less developed recognition of outcomes and quality Essential features of non-formal learning balanced co-existence and interaction between cognitive, affective and practical dimensions of learning linking individual and social learning, partnership-oriented solidarity and symmetrical teaching/learning relations participatory and learner-centred holistic and process-oriented close to real life concerns, experiential and oriented to learning by doing, using intercultural exchanges and encounters as learning devices voluntary and (ideally) open-access aims above all to convey and practice the values and skills of democratic life Non-formal teaching/training and learning methods communication-based methods: interaction, dialogue, mediation activity-based methods: experience, practice, experimentation socially-focussed methods: partnership, teamwork, networking self-directed methods: creativity, discovery, responsibility (Source: Council of Europe, 2001) These ideas and concepts could well be useful for studying learning and competence development in YiA projects, in particular with respect to learning for active/democratic citizenship and participation in civil society as well as in public and political life. 16 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 2.4 Analysis of surveys in May 2012 The present study is based on data from projects funded through the YiA National Agencies in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium (Flemish-speaking community), Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden and Turkey. The surveys, which targeted project participants and project leaders, were implemented in May and November 2012. Due to the multilingual nature of the questionnaires, the study is able to collect data from participants and project leaders from more than 40 countries participating in these projects. A more detailed description of how the survey has been implemented can be found in Appendix B Methodology. Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 17

3 Main conclusions 3.1 Effects of Youth in Action projects 6 Competence development of participants In the standard surveys conducted between 2009 and 2011 participants indicate that their involvement in YiA projects contributes to the development of all key competences for lifelong learning (see European Parliament and Council, 2006a). While the most distinct development is reported for interpersonal, social and intercultural competence as well as communication in a foreign language (as could be expected), a significant development is also reported for sense of entrepreneurship, civic competence, cultural awareness and expression and learning competence (learning to learn). Distinct developments can also be found for communication in the first language (mother tongue), mathematical competence and sense of initiative. 7 This also suggests that competences related to active and democratic citizenship as well as to participation in public life and civil society are developed through participation in YiA projects. A minority of participants report to have developed all other key competences for lifelong learning. The selfassessment of participants is confirmed by the assessment done by the project leaders of the participants competence development, showing a highly significant correlation between selfperception and external perception by the project leaders (see Fennes et al., 2012). While the focus of the present study is on exploring how key competences are developed in YiA projects, it is also necessary to explore which key competences were developed by the specific sample for the present study in order to relate these two dimensions what was learned and how was it learned to each other. For this purpose, the standard surveys use amongst others 21 indicators for skills related to the nine key competences for lifelong learning as well as for media literacy (see European Parliament, 2008). For the present study, these indicators were reduced to 14 indicators which either indicated a competence development for a relatively big proportion of participants or which showed redundant results with indicators related to the same key competence. In principle, the responses to the special survey in May 2012 (see Table 69, Table 70) are very similar to those to the standard surveys in 2010/11 (see Fennes et al., 2012). More specifically, a comparison of the responses in 2010/11 and in May 2012 (see Table 71) shows very high and very significant correlations for: PP responses (self-perception) in 2010/11 and in May 2012; 8 PL responses (PL perception of PP skills development) in 2010/11 and in May 2012; 9 PP responses (self-perception) and PL responses (PL perception of PP skills development) in 2010/11; 10 6 It needs to be noted that this section refers to perceptions of effects by participants and project leaders. Nevertheless, these perceptions do not necessarily reflect actual effects. In this respect, whenever the term effects (of Youth in Action projects) is used in this study, it refers to perceptions by participants and project leaders. At the same time, these perceptions are relevant since they are shared by large proportions of participants, since perceptions of participants are confirmed by perceptions of project leaders (and vice-versa), and since these perceptions are confirmed by responses to other questions. E.g., it is very unlikely that participants would encourage other young people to participate in YiA projects if their projects had no positive effects on them. 7 Some of the eight key competences defined in the European reference framework for key competences for lifelong learning were divided into sub-competences. In particular, interpersonal, social, intercultural and civic competence was divided into three sub-competences: interpersonal and social, intercultural and civic. 8 r=0.990** (Pearson s correlation for interval variables) 9 r=0.953** (Pearson s correlation) 18 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 PP responses (self-perception) and PL responses (PL perception of PP skills development) in May 2012. 11 Competence development of project leaders A significant finding of the standard surveys between 2009 and 2011 is that also project leaders report that they developed key competences through their involvement in YiA projects. In principle, their responses show a similar pattern to the competence development of participants but with some variation, in particular with a perceived stronger development of intercultural competence and a perceived weaker development of learning competence ( learning to learn ) (see Fennes et al., 2012). Similar to the participants, also the project leaders were asked in the special survey in 2012 if they believe that they developed specific skills related to the key competences for lifelong learning, using the same indicators as in the participant questionnaire. Also here, the responses from 2010/11 are comparable to those from May 2012 (see Table 72): project leaders report the most distinct development for skills related to communication in a foreign language, interpersonal, social, intercultural and civic competence as well as to sense of entrepreneurship and communication in the first language (mother tongue). This corresponds largely to the responses of project leaders in the standard surveys in 2010/11 with respect to their self-perception of the development of key competences. 12 Furthermore, project leaders also report that through their involvement in YiA projects they developed youth work competences, in particular with respect to non-formal education and international youth projects. This was already a finding from the standard surveys between 2009 and 2011, which was confirmed by the special survey in May 2012: a large majority of project leaders report that they got to know the methods they use in YiA projects through youth projects thus through work-related learning or through youth work training (see Table 75), the latter also being provided through the YiA Programme. This is also being confirmed by an increasing proportion of project leaders who report this (i.e. getting to know methods through youth projects and through youth work training) the more often they have been involved in similar projects (see Table 76). Overall, this reflects that Youth in Action contributes to the professional development of youth workers and youth leaders and thus to learning organisations (see Fennes et al., 2012). 3.2 Methods applied in YiA projects Youth in Action a space for new learning experiences A majority of participants report that their project used exercises, games and methods that were new to them. Similarly, a majority of project leaders report that during their project they had applied exercises, games and methods for the first time (see Table 73, Table 75). This indicates that YiA projects are a space for trying out and experiencing educational/learning methods a laboratory for training/teaching and learning for both participants and project leaders. And these projects also provide for successful learning spaces: a considerable majority of participants 10 r=0.936** (Pearson s correlation) 11 r=0.901** (Pearson s correlation) 12 Contrary to a comparison of the respective responses of participants in the standard surveys in 2010/11 and in the special survey in May 2012, an accurate comparison is not possible because the questions in the standard survey ask about the development of key competences of project leaders and not about the development of the related skills as it was the case in the special survey in May 2012. Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 19

indicate that these methods addressed important topics and triggered their interest for them; that they helped them to learn something more easily; and that they consider them to be suited also for school or university. Only a very small proportion of participants thought that the methods used were useless for learning something valuable or that they were somewhat childish (see Table 73). This indicates that a large majority of participants were satisfied with the methodology of the project. This is confirmed by a vast majority of participants (87%) indicating that they plan to participate in a similar project in the next few years because they could further develop useful competences (see Table 65 Table 66, Table 67). As for the project leaders, they report applying a mix of methods, ranging between methods they use for the first time and methods they already know well how to implement, thus keeping a balance between experimentation/innovation and continuity/familiarity. A differentiation of the responses by previous experience of participants and project leaders with similar projects indicates that innovation of methods is a standard feature in non-formal youth education projects. While, in general, the proportion of participants and project leaders becoming involved in or applying new methods decreases with an increasing number of experiences with similar projects, it still remains above 40% (see Table 74, Table 76). Interestingly, the proportion of project leaders applying methods which are new to them increases after their fifth similar project. This suggests that project leaders increasingly start to try out new methods when they feel to have a sufficient experience with such projects (see Figure 2). As for the participants, the responses indicate that the acceptance and appreciation of methods used in YiA Projects or similar projects (i.e., non-formal youth education projects) increases with the number of experiences in such projects: the participants get used to these methods, increasingly believe that they addressed important topics, find them less childish, increasingly believe that they would be suited for school or university, and increasingly report that they helped them to learn something more easily. The latter point shows some ups and downs over the number of previous experiences, suggesting that there are also doubts over time (see Table 74, Figure 1). Similarly, non-formal (youth) education methods might also show some wear marks over time: the proportion of participants indicating that the methods triggered their interest for the project topics decreased after five similar experiences, and the proportion of participants indicating that the methods were useless for learning something valuable increased again (from a very low level below 10%) after five similar experiences, suggesting that non-formal education is challenged to be innovative and to be developed continuously. At the same time, the responses of the participants indicate that non-formal education and learning methods receive increasing recognition among those who get involved in them. This suggests that further efforts to involve young people and adults in non-formal education activities would contribute the recognition of non-formal education and learning (see Council of Europe, 2003; Council of the European Union, 2004; Partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Commission in the field of Youth, 2011). The learning continuum 13 in Youth in Action projects Participants and project leaders report that between 40% and 50% of the project time was dedicated to activities which are mostly in line with non-formal education/learning methods; between 20% and 25% of the project time was dedicated to activities which rather would correspond to formal education/learning methods (i.e. listening to and engaging with 13 See section 2.3, Theoretical background, page 13. 20 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 presentations/inputs given by experts or group/project leaders ); around 20% of the project time was not part of the project programme, providing opportunities primarily for informal learning. Naturally, informal learning also can take place during formal and non-formal education activities (see Table 85, Table 86). These responses indicate that YiA projects offer a broad spectrum of learning opportunities between more formal education activities on one end and more informal learning situations on the other, thus covering the full learning continuum, with around half of the activities in the non-formal education/learning bracket (see section 2.3, Concept for this study). The responses of participants and project leaders mostly correspond with each other, but project leaders allocate more time to non-formal education/learning and less to more formal education activities than the participants across all project types. This might be caused by a biased perception of project leaders who are busy most of the time with preparing and implementing non-formal education/learning activities, thus giving this more weight in their assessment of the project time. The latter would also suggest that preparing and implementing non-formal education/learning activities is more time consuming than organising formal education activities. On the other hand, also participants could have a biased perception: in more formal education activities such as lectures/presentations learners are rather passive and, therefore, they might need more energy for concentration so the participants might experience these activities to take longer, while in more interactive (non-formal learning) activities they might experience time passing more quickly. This issue how participants and project leaders experience different forms of learning needs to be explored further through qualitative research. Similarly, project leaders allocate less time to informal situations in the project than the participants across all project types. Biases may also exist here for similar reasons, with project leaders being busy with preparing organised (formal or non-formal education) activities also during free time, when there are no organised activities for the participants. The highest percentages for more formal education/learning activities are reported for Training and Networking (T&N) projects, for activities within the Training and Cooperation Plan (TCP) and Structured Dialogue (SD) projects. 14 The latter suggests that the dialogue between young people and policy makers follows more traditional patterns presentations, talks and speeches followed by discussions than other project types. On the other hand, it is remarkable that training activities for non-formal education use a relatively high proportion of formal education elements. This might be caused by a need for more cognitive methods when teaching and learning pedagogic competences, but it might also be caused by the assumption that a training activity will be taken more seriously if it includes formal education elements. This issue would need to be studied further through qualitative methods in 2012/13. On the other end of the spectrum are European Voluntary Service (EVS) projects with a relatively small proportion of more formal education activities and a rather high proportion of informal learning situations, thus reflecting a stronger learning-by-doing dimension in voluntary work and/or more learning in everyday life situations in the hosting country. The highest percentages for non-formal education/learning activities are reported for Youth Initiatives (YI) and less distinctly for Youth Democracy (YD) Projects. 15 For YI projects this is compensated mostly by relatively low percentages for informal situations. This could be 14 These outcomes need to be considered with caution since the samples for TCP activities and SD projects are relatively small (54 TCP participants, 119 SD participants, 9 SD project leaders). 15 The latter needs to be considered with caution since the sample for YD projects is relatively small (93 YD participants, 22 YD project leaders). Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 21

explained by the specific nature of YI projects: organising an initiative, thus mostly preparing or implementing activities over a longer period, where informal time in between is not so much allocated to the project than to private life (see Table 85, Table 86). Specific methods in Youth in Action projects YiA projects are characterised by a broad variety of methods applied in each project: participants as well as project leaders selected on average more than 7 out of 11 methods they could choose from 16, and each of the methods mentioned was selected by more than half of the participants/project leaders (see Table 77, Table 78). Responses of project participants (PP) and of project leaders (PL) correlate very highly and the correlation is very significant (0.988** according to Pearson), thus confirming the reliability of the data. Furthermore, this more detailed analysis of methods applied in YiA projects largely corresponds with the outcomes of the more general question on the allocation of project time to activities according to the learning continuum between more formal, non-formal and informal education/learning (see above). The highest percentages are shown for discussions (87% of all cases), followed by presentations/input by participants (82% PP/83% PL) and presentations/input by experts (75% PP/73% PL). On the one hand, this indicates a dominant use of rather traditional methods (i.e., presentations/input followed by discussions), on the other hand this reflects a participatory approach with a large majority of projects involving participants in presentations. Remarkable is the high percentage of projects providing for individual reflection or reflection in a group (76% PP, 80% PL): this indicates that reflection is considered to support learning processes by a large majority of project leaders. Also ranking high are outdoor or sports activities (around 67%), partly indicating a traditional approach in youth projects (sports) but possibly also suggesting that outdoor activities are applied as non-formal learning methods. Furthermore, experiential learning methods are applied by more than 60% of project leaders (role plays, simulations, field exercises, trying out what has been learned), as well as artistic methods and using digital or online media. The latter suggests that e-learning/blended learning has found its way also into the world of nonformal education. It should also be mentioned that in around 60% of the projects mentoring by members of the project team is taking place explicitly or implicitly. When differentiating the responses by project types, it shows that Youth Exchange (YE) projects apply the broadest variety of methods, with an emphasis on participative non-formal education/learning methods (including outdoor or sports activities), while YD, SD and EVS projects apply a relatively smaller variety of methods. As for EVS this could be explained with relatively less structured educational interventions (in relation to the project duration), thus giving more space to informal learning and workplace-related learning. As for YD and SD projects, the responses point towards a more cognitive and formal learning approach with relatively high percentages for presentations and discussions and relatively low percentages for the more affective and practical methods. Also T&N projects and TCP show relatively high percentages for presentations and discussions (which corresponds with the responses to the question on the percentage of project time allocated to types of activities see previous section and Table 85, Table 86), but these activities are complemented by affective and practical methods, in particular experiential learning, field exercises and reflection (individually or in groups) of what has been experienced/learned, thus combining cognitive, affective and practical dimensions of learning (see Table 79, Table 80). 16 The 12 th option other was selected by only 5%/8% of the participants/project leaders, thus indicating that the selection of methods offered in the respective question was rather complete. 22 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 While responses from project leaders and from participants show a very high and very significant correlation for all project types except for SD projects, there are also some discrepancies, e.g., with respect to using digital or online media, reflection (individually or in a group), or advice or mentoring by a member of the project team. Partly this could be caused by relatively small samples for some project types (YD, SD, TCP) but partly also by different perceptions of project leaders and participants. Such discrepancies would need to be followed up after the second online survey in November 2012 and through the qualitative study conducted in 2012/13. 3.3 Learning of participants in YiA projects Learning situations and activities Similar to the variety of methods, YiA projects are also characterised by a broad spectrum of learning situations and activities occurring during the course of a project from its preparation to the time of reflection after the core activities of the project: participants selected on average between 5 and 6 situations/activities out of 9; project leaders ticked on average between 6 and 7 out of 9 situations/activities they could choose from 17 ; six/seven of the nine situations/activities mentioned were selected by more than half of the participants/project leaders (see Table 81, Table 82). Participants as well as project leaders report that informal time of participants with one another or with people in the project environment (e.g., project leaders) is an element found in a large majority of projects. Interestingly, 23% of the participants and 14% of the project leaders did not tick this response option, suggesting that the programmes of their projects were full of structured activities. Participants also report that more than 75% of projects provided opportunities for listening to presentations/input, reflecting and talking about the project experiences during or after the project, or free time for individual activities, and that more than half of the projects provided opportunities for involvement in the preparation or organisation of the project as well as applying what they had learned through the project and advice/mentoring by a member of the project team. 18 The responses of project leaders and those of the participants show a very high and very significant correlation 19, but with a different emphasis. In particular, project leaders more frequently report involvement of participants in the preparation or organisation of the project, informal time, reflection, participants applying what they had learned and mentoring of participants. This could be explained by participants being less conscious of these situations and activities while project leaders have a more distant perception, but it well could also be wishful thinking on behalf of the project leaders, in particular with respect to the involvement of participants in the preparation or organisation of the project. Nevertheless, 61% of the participants report that their project allowed for their involvement in the preparation or organisation of the project, which reflects a participatory approach applied by the project organisers (see Table 81, Table 82). 20 17 A 10 th option other was selected by only 6%/1% of the participants/project leaders, thus indicating that the selection of situations offered in the respective question was rather complete. 18 A situation appearing in relatively few projects is voluntary work in another country. This is evident since this situation applies primarily for EVS projects and was included in the options for cross-checking responses on situations in which participants learned best later in the questionnaire. 19 r=0.892** according to Pearson 20 A relatively big discrepancy appears for activities and exercises which were part of the programme which was selected by 73% of the project leaders, but only by 37% of the participants: this could be a misunderstanding by the participants, because the responses by the project leaders are more plausible. The respective option included an explanation specifically for EVS participants (see Table 81) which might have been confusing for participants in other project types who then simply skipped this item. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that participants selected most frequently this specific situation/setting as one in which they learned best (see Table 87). This Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 23

When differentiating the responses by project types, the specific characteristics of project types as outlined above in section 3.2 are partly confirmed (see Table 83, Table 84). YI projects show as intended by the YiA programme a highly participatory approach by involving the participants in the preparation and organisation of a large majority of projects. The proportion of YI projects with non-formal education methods is among the highest across all project types. 21 On the other end, YD and T&N projects as well as TCP activities provide for relatively little involvement of participants in the preparation/organisation of the projects. For YD projects this is remarkable since this reflects a contradiction to the objectives of this project type; for T&N projects and TCP activities this reflects a traditional approach to training which also could be challenged. YE and T&N projects as well as TCP activities provide for a range of situations between rather formal, non-formal and informal learning. In particular, TCP activities show reflection, mentoring and experiential learning as prominent features, thus underlining the strong educational nature of these activities. 22 From the perspective of responding participants, YD and SD projects show a relatively small variety of situations/settings and favour a more cognitive educational approach. 23 How do participants learn best in YiA projects? Participants were asked in which situations or activities that might have occurred in the course of the project they learned best to develop a number of skills. The situations/activities are the same as referred to above. The skills are the same as those which participants were asked before, if they had developed them in the project (see Table 69). Each of these skills relates to a specific key competence for lifelong learning (see European Parliament and Council, 2006a). Also the project leaders were asked about their perceptions of situations in which participants best developed these skills (see Table 70). The responses of participants and project leaders correspond highly to each other with respect to a number of aspects. The situations/activities in which participants developed all 14 skills (the rows with the totals at the bottom of Table 87 and Table 88) show a high and very significant correlation 24 between the responses of participants and those of project leaders; similarly, the ranking of situations/activities is almost identical for the responses of participants and project leaders (four rankings are identical, five situations differ by one rank). The skills developed across all situations/activities (the columns with the totals on the right side of Table 87 and Table 88) show a high and very significant correlation 25 between the responses of participants and those of project leaders; similarly, the ranking of skills is almost identical for the responses of participants and project leaders (seven rankings are identical, five skills differ by one rank, one skill each differs by two or three ranks). The mode values for developing a skill best in these situations are identical for the responses of participants and project leaders; for nine skills also the second highest values issue should be explored with qualitative methods. In the future, this should become a dependency question with a special option for EVS participants. 21 The percentage for SD projects is higher but reflecting a very small sample of project leaders (n=9). 22 This needs to be considered with caution since the sample for TCP activities is relatively small (53 participants). 23 The PL samples for YD and SD projects are too small to draw reliable conclusions. 24 r=0.986** 25 r=0.970** 24 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 are identical and for all other skills the second highest values differ just by one or two ranks between participants and project leaders. Furthermore, there is a strong coherence between the ranking of situations which occurred in the projects (see Table 81, Table 82) and the ranking of situations in which the participants developed best the skills in question (see Table 87, Table 88), with some exceptions, as listed below. The participants responses show for their involvement in the organisation of the project a relatively high value for learning best the skills in question (see Table 87), but this activity (involvement in the organisation of the project) only ranks sixth with respect to their occurrence in the projects (see Table 81). This implies that the participants perceive that their participation in the organisation of the project contributes relatively strongly to their skills development. The responses of project leaders show for activities and exercises within the project programme the highest value for best learning the skills in question (see Table 88), but these activities and exercises only rank sixth with respect to their occurrence in the projects (according to the project leaders see Table 82). This implies that according to the project leaders these non-formal education/learning situations and activities contribute relatively strongly to skills development of participants. 26 The responses of participants show a considerable difference in ranking for listening to presentations or inputs (this situation being on rank two with respect to occurrence in projects and only on rank seven for learning best the skills in question). This indicates that the participants perceive presentations to contribute relatively weakly to their skills development. Altogether, this indicates a high degree of coherence of the responses of participants and project leaders as well as of responses to different questions concerning skills development. As for the main question how do participants learn best in YiA projects, the responses make evident that participants develop the skills in question best through a combination of non-formal, informal and rather formal education/learning methods and settings (see Table 87, Table 88): On average, the participants ticked 3.1 situations per skill (indicating that they learned the respective skill best in these situations) and the project leaders ticked 3.5 situations per skill (indicating that they believe that participants learned the respective skill best in these situations). 27 This implies that project leaders believe that the participants develop the respective skills on average in more situations than the participants perceive this about their own skills development. This difference can be caused either by an external perception of the project leaders which is more distant than the self-perception of participants, but it could well be a biased perception on the side of the project leaders (e.g., wishful thinking) who assume that they created a bigger number of effective learning situations. 26 It needs to be noted that a similar picture appears for the responses of the participants, but it is possible that they misunderstood this item in the question on the occurrence of these situations in the projects see above under learning situations and activities. 27 These questions are quite complex, asking respondents to tick any of nine situations/activities (which might have occurred during the project) in which they learned best a specific skill. Nevertheless, this question was answered for each of the 14 skills in question by on average 83% of the project leaders and 75% of the participants. It needs to be noted that those project leaders and participants answering this question might not be representative for the sample; in particular, it is likely that participants who are less educated and/or have limited digital competence did not complete this question. Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 25

Non-formal education methods and situations, as given by the item activities and exercises within the project programme, play the most dominant role, showing the mode value for learning best all skills in question except one. Informal learning situations, as given by the item informal experiences with people in/around the project, show the second highest value for a situation where participants learn best, confirming the relevance of informal situations and settings for learning and competence development in general. In particular, this type of situation shows the mode value for learning best to discuss political topics seriously which indicates that the development of citizenship/civic skills is strongly supported through informal learning. Besides the above two situations/activities, the following are reported to contribute considerably to the development of selected skills for lifelong learning: reflecting/talking about the experiences during or after the project confirming the importance of reflection for learning; taking part in the organisation of the project indicating a strong link between participation and learning, thus the value of participative learning; when applying what one has learned in the project confirming the relevance of experiential learning and of the practical dimension of learning. As for the frequency of how many situations a participant ticked for a specific skill (indicating that she/he learned the respective skill best in these situations), there is no indication that this frequency is influenced considerably by gender, age, educational attainment, country of residence, project type, sending/hosting, nor by the length of time between the project and the survey. 3.4 Learning of project leaders in YiA projects Project leader involvement and roles in YiA projects In order to better grasp the learning of projects leaders in YiA projects (see also section 3.1), one needs to take into consideration their involvement and roles in the project: A considerable majority of project leaders (62%) report that they were involved in their project as volunteers (see Table 53); 38% report that they were involved on an employed basis (23% full-time, 15% part-time). This is similar to the responses in the standard surveys in 2010/11, with a slight shift towards more voluntary project leaders (then 57%) and less full-time employed (then 26%). About 16% of the project leaders report that their function in the project was primarily educational (12% in 2010/11), 31% report to have had primarily an organisational function (32% in 2010/11) and 53% report to have had both an organisational and educational function (56% in 2010/11) see Table 55. About 78% of the project leaders report that they were directly involved in the project throughout/most of the time (see Table 57), 11% report that they were involved more than half of the time, 9% less than half of the time and 2% hardly/not at all (only little differences to 2010/11 with +/ 2 percentage points). This indicates that a considerable majority of project leaders were involved on a voluntary basis (62%), had at least partly an educational role (69%) and were directly involved in the project more than half of the time (89%) the latter two characteristics suggesting that a large majority of project leaders played a significant (educational) role in their projects and thus are likely to have been involved in a broad scope of tasks related to the project. 26 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 This is confirmed by the responses of project leaders to the question about the specific tasks related to the project development and implementation they were involved in (see Table 90): on average, each project leader reports to have been involved in at least six out of the eight types of project leader activities in question; in seven of these activity types at least two thirds of project leaders were involved; only 6% ticked the option other which indicates that the eight activity types offered covered largely the full scope of activities in which project leaders can get involved in within YiA projects. All this implies that a large majority of project leaders were involved in a broad scope of activities in which work-related learning could take place at least potentially. Interestingly, reflecting/talking about my experiences during or after the project is the activity reported by the largest proportion of project leaders (85%), suggesting that most project leaders took the time and were motivated to do this assuming that this was not an obligatory task. When differentiating the project leader involvement in the different activities by project types (see Table 89), it becomes clear that YI project leaders are most directly involved in the project, ranking highest for almost all types of project activities, including for organisational and administrative tasks. The latter indicates that they do not have a strong organisation behind them, which suggests that the projects are largely in line with one of the intentions of this sub-action. The least involvement in the full scope of project leader activities is reported by EVS project leaders who obviously have a more organisational role and are not so much involved in the implementation of project activities with/for the participants. Remarkable is the involvement of a relatively small proportion of YE, YD and T&N project leaders in designing their project, suggesting that around 40% of them come into the project when it had already been designed. The reasons and effects of this could be explored through qualitative methods in 2012/13. When differentiating the project leader involvement in the different project leader activities by their role/function in the project, a diverse picture appears (see Table 91): Most project leaders with both an equally educational and organisational role (which represent more than half of the project leaders see Table 55) report to have been involved on average in almost all types of project leader activities, and that they were on average involved in more activity types than project leaders with a primarily educational function and project leaders with a primarily organisational function, including organisational and administrative tasks and implementing the project activities with/for participants. While this indicates that project leaders with this double role must be highly challenged, it also means that they have the broadest scope of opportunities for workrelated learning. Project leaders with a primarily organisational function report to have also been involved in many types of activities other than organisational/administrative tasks. In fact, they report that they were on average involved in more activity types than project leaders with a primarily educational function, including in designing the project. This implies that it needs to be ensured that project leaders with a primarily organisational function also receive training and support with respect to their involvement in other activities, in particular for educational activities. Relatively small percentages appear for the involvement of project leaders with a primarily educational role in designing the project or in cooperating with colleagues from their organisation or with youth workers/leaders from partners in other countries when preparing, implementing and evaluating the project. This suggests that a considerable proportion of project leaders with a primarily educational function come into the project at a stage when the project has already been designed and prepared. This could cause problems, such as lack of ownership and identification with the project by those who Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 27

then play a prominent role in implementing the project activities with/for participants. This aspect should be further explored with qualitative methods. How do project leaders learn best in YiA projects? Also project leaders were asked in which situations or activities, which might have occurred for them in the course of the project, they learned best to develop a number of skills. The situations/activities are the same as referred to above, thus situations/activities related to the development, implementation and evaluation of the project (see Table 90). The skills are the same as those which project leaders were asked before, if they had developed them in the project (see Table 72). The responses of project leaders show the following (see Table 92): Project leaders report to have developed the skills in question best through a combination of situations/activities on average, they ticked 3.6 situations/activities per skill (indicating that they developed the respective skill best in these situations). 28 Overall, project leaders report having developed the skills in question best through activities which are directly linked to the development and implementation of the project, i.e., when designing the project, when cooperating with youth workers from other countries and with colleagues from their organisations, when implementing project activities with/for participants, and also during organisational and administrative tasks. The activity when implementing project activities for/with participants plays the most dominant role, showing the mode value for learning best a skill for ten of the 14 skills in question and the second highest value for the other four skills. This corresponds with the responses of participants which show the highest value for activities and exercises within the project programme thus indicating that project leaders and participants learn best in the same activities of the project; A prominent role is also taken by designing the project which is reported to contribute to the development of skills related to sense of entrepreneurship, learning competence and mathematical competence. Also reported to contribute considerably to the development of the skills in question is the cooperation with colleagues from one s own organisation or from other countries, specifically with respect to foreign language competence, social competence, intercultural competence, communication in the first language, civic competence and media literacy. Interestingly, also project leaders report to learn best to discuss political topics seriously during informal experiences in the project, but also to say what they think with conviction both skills being related to citizenship/civic competence thus confirming that these skills are learned best through informal learning. Furthermore, the skill to achieve something in the interest of the community which is also related to citizenship competence is reported to be developed considerably when designing the project or when cooperating with colleagues, thus indicating that this skill is also developed through work-related learning. Reflecting and talking about the project experiences does not play such a prominent role but must be frequently combined with one or more other activities/situations as a learning activity, taking into account that it was ticked for each skill by on average 44% of 28 This question is quite complex, asking respondents to tick any of eight situations/activities (which might have occurred for them during the project) in which they learned best a specific skill. Nevertheless, this question was answered for each of the 14 skills in question by on average 76% of the project leaders completing the questionnaire. It needs to be noted that those project leaders answering this question might not be representative for the sample. 28 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 the project leaders. In particular it received most responses by project leaders for identifying opportunities for their personal and professional future. When comparing the frequencies of activities occurring in the project as reported by project leaders (see Table 90) with the frequency of activities in which project leaders report to have learned best the skills in question (see Table 92), in can be observed that designing the project, cooperating with youth workers from other countries and implementing project activities for/with participants rank highest as activities contributing to the development of the skills in question, but rank fairly low with respect to the frequency they occurred in the project: this indicates that these activities all of them directly linked to the implementation of the project are very effective for work-related learning. Vice versa, reflecting and talking about the project experience, informal time/experiences in the project and cooperating with colleagues from one s own organisation are reported to have occurred relatively often, but are much less reported to have contributed to the skills development, thus indicating that these activities are considered to be less effective for developing these skills. When comparing the average number of activities/situations ticked for each skill in question (indicating that project leaders developed the respective skill best in these activities) it can be observed that some skills are reported to be better developed in more different activities and others in less. For example, skills related to communication competence (first language and foreign languages), social competence, intercultural competence, mathematical competence and sense of entrepreneurship are reported to be developed in more different activities than skills related to learning competence, civic competence, sense of initiative or medial literacy. Of course, this cannot be generalised since the activities in question only relate to work-related learning in YiA projects, but this certainly suggests it would be worthwhile to explore this issue in more general contexts. Overall, the responses of project leaders indicate that through YiA projects they become involved in a broad scope of activities and situations in which work-related learning takes place no matter if they are involved as volunteers or on an employment basis and that they develop skills related to key competences for lifelong learning through a combination of these activities. 3.5 Learning of YiA participants in everyday life Participants were also asked where they learned something during the twelve months before the survey. The responses reveal the following (see Table 93): Each of the situations in question applies to more than half of the respondents (in fact, all except one apply to more than 65% of respondents), confirming that these situations cover a broad range of everyday life situations that could potentially be learning spaces. On average, each respondent ticked for around 9 out of 14 situations that they learned something in these situations during the twelve months before the survey, indicating that respondents perceive to learn in a wide spectrum of different formal, non-formal and informal learning situations within the learning continuum. For each of the situations in question, more than half of the respondents indicated that they learned something in these situations, except for in a programme combining periods of study with workplace-based learning for which around 50% of the respondents indicated that this situation did not apply to them. This indicates that all situations in question play a relevant role as learning spaces. Interestingly, the four situations ranking highest as learning spaces provide mostly for informal learning and partly for non-formal learning (selected by between 74% and 87% of the respondents); formal education ( at school, university or college ) comes only in Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 29

fifth place, although only 18% of the respondents indicate that this situation did not apply to them during the past 12 months. When differentiating the responses by the occupation of participants at the time of the project, the following can be observed (see Table 94): Of those who are primarily in education or training, the biggest proportion report to have learned something in a formal education context (school, college or university) during the previous twelve months; all other groups report other contexts to be more relevant for their learning, in particular work, informal time with other people or leisure activities. Even when participants are primarily in education or training, they frequently report other primarily informal learning contexts to have been relevant for their learning during the previous 12 months. Of those who are full-time employed or self-employed, the biggest proportion report that they learned at work, but also in informal and non-formal learning contexts outside work; those who are part-time employed also report that training courses are relevant learning contexts for them, indicating that they aim for professional development through continuing education and training. For all groups, informal learning contexts appear to be very relevant for learning during the previous twelve months. Overall, the responses indicate that the participants learn in a range of contexts/situations that cover the full continuum comprising formal, non-formal and informal learning contexts as well as work-related learning. Informal learning contexts play an important role for all participants and a dominant role for those who are unemployed, not in paid work or volunteers. Obviously, school, college or university are more relevant learning contexts for those in education or training and work/the workplace are more relevant learning contexts for those who are working. For the latter also non-formal learning contexts (i.e., training courses) play a relevant role. A comparison with the responses to the Eurobarometer 59 (see European Commission, 2003) 29 shows that RAY respondents were less involved in working situations (i.e., learning on the job, training courses in their workplace, combining periods of study with workplace-based learning, informal time at the workplace) or in a voluntary, social or military service than the Eurobarometer respondents, but more involved in travelling/studying/working/living abroad or in school/college/university. All other situations showed a similar involvement of both samples. This suggests that relatively more YiA participants tend to be involved in educational contexts and, therefore, less in work contexts or in a voluntary, social or military service than a sample representative for the global population. On the other hand, for all situations in question a (considerably) bigger proportion of YiA participants than respondents to the Eurobarometer survey report that they learned something in these situations (on average with a difference of more than 40 percentage points), no matter if these situations are reported to have occurred more or less frequently for the two samples (see Figure 3). This suggests that relatively more YiA participants have learned something in everyday life situations or that more of them are more conscious of their learning in these situations or that more of them simply believe that they have learned in these situations. 29 The respective question was taken from Eurobarometer 59 Lifelong learning: citizens views. The data sets of both surveys RAY and Eurobarometer were limited to respondents aged 15 to 40 and to EU member states in 2003 (EU 15) which were also residence countries of respondents of the RAY survey (all 15 EU member states except for Luxembourg). 30 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 For a number of the situations in question relatively big differences appear up to 64 percentage points. A reason could be that YiA participants had been involved in these situations longer, more often or more intensively during the 12 previous months. For example, relatively big differences appear for the options as training placement in a company or as part of an exchange programme as well as for travelling, studying, working or living abroad (the number of YiA participant responses are around 55% to 64% above the number of responses in the Eurobarometer see Figure 3) which suggests that a large majority of YiA participants believe that they had learned something through their YiA experience, which most likely is included in their responses to these questions ( an exchange programme, travelling, or living abroad ). Relatively big differences appear also for a period of voluntary, social or military service ; assuming that only a small percentage of YiA respondents could refer to military service since most of the countries in question have no obligatory military service and, therefore, no obligatory alternative social service, the YiA respondents could well have been referring to an EVS experience when answering this question. Furthermore, the options following a programme combining periods of study with workplacebased learning, involvement in social or political work and at school, college or university show much higher percentages for YiA participants than for respondents to the Eurobarometer survey. The latter a higher percentage of YiA respondents having learned something at school, university or college reflects the finding that a high percentage of YiA respondents are well educated and tend to be in education and training; the difference for involvement in social or political work could be interpreted that YiA respondents tend to perceive their participation in a YiA project as social/political engagement; similarly, they could view their YiA participation as combining periods of study with workplace-based learning since many of them are in education and training. These hypotheses would need to be studied further through qualitative methods. Relatively small differences appear for more informal learning contexts which are common to most people, such as being at home or socialising with other people, but also for workplace learning (learning on the job). How do participants learn best in everyday life? Participants were also asked in which everyday life situations they learn best the skills for lifelong learning, which they had been asked about concerning their learning in YiA projects. The responses revealed the following (see Table 95): On average, the participants ticked 3.6 situations per skill (indicating that they learned the respective skill best in these situations) this suggest that each of these skills is learned in a combination of different everyday life situations. The situation ticked most frequently for developing these skills best is a nonformal/informal learning situation in an association, civil society organisations, doing voluntary work or projects, etc. (which also suggests that YiA participants are frequently involved in these kinds of organisations or activities). Formal education situations ( at school, university or college ) rank only in second place. Further relevant situations for developing these skills are informal and non-formal learning situations such as studying, travelling, working or living abroad, when being with my friends or family or attending training courses/seminars/ workshops etc. the latter also showing the mode value for developing the skills to improve my learning or to have more fun when learning (a skill relating to learning competence). Overall, the skills in question are mostly acquired in a combination between formal, nonformal and informal learning situations. Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 31

4 Bibliography Chisholm, L. (2006). AT The End is the beginning. Advanced Training of Trainers in Europe (ATTE). Volume 2. External Evaluation. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.youth-partnership.net/export/sites/default/youthpartnership/documents/publications/training/atte_vol2_external_evaluation.pdf Chisholm, L., & Fennes, H. (2008). Lernen in der zweiten Moderne: neue Zusammenhänge denken und erkennen. In M. Schratz & P. Resinger (Eds.), Schule im Umbruch (pp. 165 186). Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press. Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2003). Informality and formality in learning : a report for the Learning and Skills Research Centre. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Council of Europe. (2001). Symposium on non-formal education, Strasbourg (EYC), 13-15 October 2000. Report. Council of Europe. Council of Europe. (2003). Recommendation Rec(2003)8 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the promotion and recognition of non-formal education/learning of young people (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 April 2003 at the 838th meeting of the Ministers Deputies). Retrieved from https://wcd.coe.int/viewdoc.jsp?id=21131 Council of the European Union. (2004). Conclusions of the Council and of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on Common European Principles for the identification and validation of non-formal and informal learning. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/validation2004_en.pdf European Commission. (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Commission Staff Working Paper (SEC(2000) 1832). European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/memoen.pdf European Commission. (2001, November 21). Communication from the Commission. Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality (COM(2001) 678 final). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lexuriserv/lexuriserv.do?uri=com:2001:0678:fin:en:pdf European Commission. (2003). Eurobarometer 59. Lifelong learning: Citizens views. Retrieved from http://info1.gesis.org/dbksearch18/sdesc2.asp?no=3903&search=eurobarometer&sear ch2=&db=d&tab=0&notabs=&nf=1&af=&ll=10 European Commission. (2004). Key competences for Lifelong Learning. A European Reference Framework. Working Group Report. European Commission. European Commission. (2010). Youth in Action Programme Guide. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/youth/youth-in-actionprogramme/doc/how_to_participate/programme_guide_10/guide_en.pdf European Parliament. (2008). European Parliament resolution of 16 December 2008 on media literacy in a digital world (2008/2129(INI)). Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getdoc.do?pubref=-//ep//text+ta+p6-ta- 2008-0598+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN 32 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 European Parliament and Council. (2006a). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (2006/962/EC). Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/lexuriserv/lexuriserv.do?uri=oj:l:2006:394:0010:0018:en:pdf European Parliament and Council. (2006b). Decision No. 1719/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Youth in Action programme for the period 2007 to 2013. Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/lexuriserv/lexuriserv.do?uri=oj:l:2006:327:0030:0044:en:pd F Fennes, H., Gadinger, S., & Hagleitner, W. (2012). Exploring Youth in Action. Effects and outcomes of the Youth in Action Programme from the perspective of project participants and project leaders. Transnational analysis 2011. Innsbruck. Retrieved from https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/45733110/projects/yia/ray/ray_transnationa l_analysis_2011_doublepage.pdf Fennes, H., Hagleitner, W., & Helling, K. (2011). Research-based Analysis of Youth in Action. Results from the first series of surveys with project participants and project leaders between October 2009 and June 2010. Transnational analysis. Innsbruck. Retrieved from http://dl.dropbox.com/u/45733110/projects/yia/ray/ray_transnational_analysis_2 010_doublepage.pdf Partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Commission in the field of Youth. (2011). Pathways 2.0 towards recognition of non-formal learning/education and of youth work in Europe. Retrieved from http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youthpartnership/documents/ekcyp/youth_policy/docs/youth_work/policy/pathways_ii_ towards_recognition_of_non-formal_learning_jan_2011.pdf Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 33

5 Appendix A Tables 5.1 Samples Project participants Table 1: Number of participants by country of residence (PP) N=2,038 Frequency Percentage AT 45 2.2 BE 20 1.0 BG 96 4.7 CZ 148 7.3 EE 110 5.4 FI 69 3.4 HU 99 4.9 LI 1 0.0 LU 1 0.0 PL 357 17.5 SE 39 1.9 SK 98 4.8 TR 264 13.0 other 691 33.9 Total 2,038 100.0 Table 2: Number of participants by project venue country (PP) N=2,038 Frequency Percentage AT 61 3.0 BE 17 0.8 BG 84 4.1 CZ 171 8.4 EE 112 5.5 FI 91 4.5 HU 168 8.2 LI 2 0.1 LU 16 0.8 PL 489 24.0 SE 77 3.8 SK 71 3.5 TR 573 28.1 other 106 5.2 Total 2,038 100.0 Table 3: Number of participants by funding country (PP) N=2,038 Frequency Percentage AT 62 3.0 BE 24 1.2 BG 84 4.1 CZ 171 8.4 EE 132 6.5 FI 121 5.9 HU 166 8.1 LI 2 0.1 LU 22 1.1 PL 487 23.9 SE 93 4.6 SK 102 5.0 TR 572 28.1 Total 2,038 100.0 34 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 4: Number of participants by project type and by hosting/sending (PP) YE (1.1/3.1) YI (1.2) YD (1.3) EVS (2.1) T&N (4.3/3.1) TCP SD (5.1) N=2,038 Hosting Sending Total Total % Total Count 346 594 940 46.1 % 36.8 63.2 100.0 - Count 237 47 284 13.9 % 83.5 16.5 100.0 - Count 42 51 93 4.6 % 45.2 54.8 100.0 - Count 42 141 183 9.0 % 23.0 77.0 100.0 - Count 83 282 365 17.9 % 22.7 77.3 100.0 - Count 12 42 54 2.6 % 22.2 77.8 100.0 - Count 96 23 119 5.8 % 80.7 19.3 100.0 - Count 858 1,180 2,038 100.0 % 42.1 57.9 100.0 - Table 5: Number of participants by project type comparison 2011 30 and 2012 31 (PP) PP 2011 2012 Frequency Valid Percentage Frequency Valid Percentage YE (1.1/3.1) 1,623 46.8 940 46.1 YI (1.2) 481 13.9 284 13.9 YD (1.3) 56 1.6 93 4.6 EVS (2.1) 454 13.1 183 9.0 T&N (4.3/3.1) 426 12.3 365 17.9 TCP 145 4.2 54 2.6 SD (5.1) 285 8.2 119 5.8 Total 3,470 100.0 2,038 100.0 Table 6: Number of participants by hosting/sending comparison 2011 and 2012 (PP) PP 2011 2012 Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Sending 1,825 52.6 1,180 57.9 Hosting 1,645 47.4 858 42.1 Total 3,470 100.0 2,038 100.0 30 Standard surveys in November 2010 and May 2011 31 Special survey in May 2012 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 35

Project leaders/team members Table 7: Number of project leaders by country of residence (PL) N=503 Frequency Percentage AT 23 4.6 BE 11 2.2 BG 27 5.4 CZ 25 5.0 EE 27 5.4 FI 17 3.4 HU 30 6.0 LI 4 0.8 LU 7 1.4 PL 77 15.3 SE 25 5.0 SK 25 5.0 TR 44 8.7 other 161 32.0 Total 503 100.0 Table 8: Number of project leaders by project venue country (PL) N=503 Frequency Percentage AT 42 8.3 BE 19 3.8 BG 31 6.2 CZ 25 5.0 EE 36 7.2 FI 33 6.6 HU 22 4.4 LI 4 0.8 LU 16 3.2 PL 65 12.9 SE 34 6.8 SK 39 7.8 TR 98 19.5 other 39 7.8 Total 503 100.0 Table 9: Number of project leaders by funding country (PL) N=503 Frequency Percentage AT 43 8.5 BE 22 4.4 BG 32 6.4 CZ 25 5.0 EE 43 8.5 FI 33 6.6 HU 23 4.6 LI 4 0.8 LU 23 4.6 PL 64 12.7 SE 42 8.3 SK 43 8.5 TR 106 21.1 Total 503 100.0 36 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 10: Number of project leaders by project type and by hosting/sending (PL) YE (1.1/3.1) YI (1.2) YD (1.3) EVS (2.1) T&N (4.3/3.1) SD (5.1) N=503 Hosting Sending Total Total % Total Count 94 128 222 44.1 % 42.3 57.7 100.0 - Count 67 3 70 13.9 % 95.7 4.3 100.0 - Count 11 11 22 4.4 % 50.0 50.0 100.0 - Count 54 31 85 16.9 % 63.5 36.5 100.0 - Count 34 61 95 18.9 % 35.8 64.2 100.0 - Count 9 0 9 1.8 % 100.0 0.0 100.0 - Count 269 234 503 100.0 % 53.5 46.5 100.0 - Table 11: Number of project leaders by project type comparison 2011 and 2012 (PL) PL 2011 2012 Frequency Valid Percentage Frequency Valid Percentage YE (1.1/3.1) 610 50.2 222 44.1 YI (1.2) 136 11.2 70 13.9 YD (1.3) 36 3.0 22 4.4 EVS (2.1) 231 19.0 85 16.9 T&N (4.3/3.1) 163 13.4 95 18.9 SD (5.1) 39 3.2 9 1.8 Total 1,215 100.0 503 100.0 Table 12: Number of project leaders by hosting/sending comparison 2011 and 2012 (PL) PL 2011 2012 Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Sending 603 49.6 234 46.5 Hosting 612 50.4 269 53.5 Total 1,215 100.0 503 100.0 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 37

5.2 Profiles Project participants Table 13: Number of participants by gender comparison 2011 and 2012 PP 2011 2012 Frequency Valid Percentage Frequency Valid Percentage Female 2,300 66.3 1,318 64.9 Male 1,170 33.7 714 35.1 Total 3,470 100.0 2,032 100.0 Table 14: Number of participants by gender and by project type (PP) N=2,038; n=2,032 YE (1.1/3.1) YI (1.2) YD (1.3) EVS (2.1) T&N (4.3/3.1) TCP SD (5.1) Total RAY Total Female Male Total Count 598 340 938 % 63.8 36.2 100.0 Count 182 100 282 % 64.5 35.5 100.0 Count 61 32 93 % 65.6 34.4 100.0 Count 128 55 183 % 69.9 30.1 100.0 Count 225 138 363 % 62.0 38.0 100.0 Count 42 12 54 % 77.8 22.2 100.0 Count 82 37 119 % 68.9 31.1 100.0 Count 869 474 1,343 % 64.7 35.3 100.0 Count 1,318 714 2,032 % 64.9 35.1 100.0 Table 15: Number of participants by gender and by age group (PP) N=2,038; n=2,022 Age group 0-14 15-17 18-25 >25 Total Female Count 6 107 820 381 1,314 % 0.5 8.1 62.4 29.0 100.0 Male Count 3 40 421 244 708 % 0.4 5.6 59.5 34.5 100.0 Total RAY Count 3 118 834 382 1,337 % 0.2 8.8 62.4 28.6 100.0 Total Count 9 147 1,241 625 2,022 % 0.4 7.3 61.4 30.9 100.0 38 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 16: Number of participants by project type and by age group (PP) N=2,038; n=2,027 Age group 0-14 15-17 18-25 >25 Total YE (1.1/3.1) Count 6 86 645 197 934 % 0.6 9.2 69.1 21.1 100.0 YI (1.2) Count 1 13 160 108 282 % 0.4 4.6 56.7 38.3 100.0 YD (1.3) Count 0 10 73 10 93 % 0.0 10.8 78.5 10.8 100.0 EVS (2.1) Count 1 0 117 65 183 % 0.5 0.0 63.9 35.5 100.0 T&N (4.3/3.1) Count 1 3 167 192 363 % 0.3 0.8 46.0 52.9 100.0 TCP Count 0 3 14 37 54 % 0.0 5.6 25.9 68.5 100.0 SD (5.1) Count 0 33 66 19 118 % 0.0 28.0 55.9 16.1 100.0 Total RAY Count 3 119 835 384 1,341 % 0.2 8.9 62.3 28.6 100.0 Total Count 9 148 1,242 628 2,027 % 0.4 7.3 61.3 31.0 100.0 Table 17: Highest educational attainment by project type (PP) N=2,038; n=2,024 YE (1.1/3.1) YI (1.2) YD (1.3) EVS (2.1) T&N (4.3/3.1) TCP SD (5.1) Total RAY Total Primary school Lower secondary school Technical school Upper secondary school Upper vocational school University, Polytechnic, post-secondary/tertiary level College Total Count 44 106 22 241 31 485 929 % 4.7 11.4 2.4 25.9 3.3 52.2 100.0 Count 6 23 13 75 17 149 283 % 2.1 8.1 4.6 26.5 6.0 52.7 100.0 Count 10 21 1 43 1 16 92 % 10.9 22.8 1.1 46.7 1.1 17.4 100.0 Count 0 0 5 36 10 132 183 % 0.0 0.0 2.7 19.7 5.5 72.1 100.0 Count 5 7 7 38 14 294 365 % 1.4 1.9 1.9 10.4 3.8 80.5 100.0 Count 1 3 0 7 5 38 54 % 1.9 5.6 0.0 13.0 9.3 70.4 100.0 Count 7 34 2 33 1 41 118 % 5.9 28.8 1.7 28.0 0.8 34.7 100.0 Count 60 168 36 355 59 664 1,342 % 4.5 12.5 2.7 26.5 4.4 49.5 100.0 Count 73 194 50 473 79 1,155 2,024 % 3.6 9.6 2.5 23.4 3.9 57.1 100.0 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 39

Table 18: Highest educational attainment by age group (PP) Primary school N=2,038; n=2,014 Lower secondary school Technical school Upper secondary school Upper vocational school University, Polytechnic, postsecondary/tertiary level College Total RAY Total Age group 0-14 15-17 18-25 >25 Total Count 6 42 24 0 72 % 8.3 58.3 33.3 0.0 100.0 Count 0 84 106 4 194 % 0.0 43.3 54.6 2.1 100.0 Count 0 2 38 10 50 % 0.0 4.0 76.0 20.0 100.0 Count 1 15 414 41 471 % 0.2 3.2 87.9 8.7 100.0 Count 1 1 58 19 79 % 1.3 1.3 73.4 24.1 100.0 Count 0 1 595 552 1.148 % 0.0 0.1 51.8 48.1 100.0 Count 3 118 834 382 1,337 % 0.2 8.8 62.4 28.6 100.0 Count 8 145 1,235 626 2,014 % 0.4 7.2 61.3 31.1 100.0 Table 19: Highest educational attainment comparison 2011 and 2012 PP 2011 2012 Frequency Valid Percentage Frequency Valid Percentage Primary school 124 3.6 73 3.6 Lower secondary school 561 16.4 194 9.6 Technical school 109 3.2 50 2.5 Upper secondary school 1,155 33.9 473 23.4 Upper vocational school 145 4.3 79 3.9 University, Polytechnic, postsecondary/tertiary level College 1,317 38.6 1,155 57.1 Total 3,411 100.0 2,024 100.0 Table 20: Educational attainment participants expect to achieve (PP) N=2,038; n=1,621 Frequency Valid Percentage Primary school 2 0.1 Lower secondary school 11 0.7 Technical school 11 0.7 Upper secondary school 49 3.0 Upper vocational school 52 3.2 University, Polytechnic, post-secondary/tertiary level College 1,496 92.3 Total 1,621 100.0 40 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 21: Highest educational attainment of the father/male legal guardian (PP) N=2,038; n=1,681 Please choose only one of the following: Frequency Valid Percentage Primary school 95 5.7 Lower secondary school 113 6.7 Technical school 289 17.2 Upper secondary school 253 15.1 Upper vocational school 178 10.6 University, Polytechnic, post-secondary/tertiary level College 685 40.7 I do not know 68 4.0 Total 1,681 100.0 Table 22: Highest educational attainment of the mother/female legal guardian (PP) N=2,038; n=1,681 Please choose only one of the following: Frequency Valid Percentage Primary school 154 9.2 Lower secondary school 104 6.2 Technical school 212 12.6 Upper secondary school 265 15.8 Upper vocational school 182 10.8 University, Polytechnic, post-secondary/tertiary level College 726 43.2 I do not know 38 2.3 Total 1,681 100.0 Table 23: Other languages than the first language/mother tongue participants can communicate in (PP) N=2,038; n=1,699 Frequency Valid Percentage 0 16 0.9 1 407 24.0 2 744 43.8 3 369 21.7 4 110 6.5 5 40 2.4 6 6 0.4 7 5 0.3 8 2 0.1 Total 1,699 100.0 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 41

Table 24: Other languages than the first language/mother tongue participants can communicate in by project type (PP) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N=2,038; n=1,699 Total RAY Total YE (1.1/3.1) YI (1.2) YD (1.3) EVS (2.1) T&N (4.3/3.1) TCP SD (5.1) Total Count 7 2 2 2 2 0 1 16 % 43.8 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 0.0 6.3 100.0 Count 201 71 10 23 67 11 24 407 % 49.4 17.4 2.5 5.7 16.5 2.7 5.9 100.0 Count 347 98 36 63 134 17 49 744 % 46.6 13.2 4.8 8.5 18.0 2.3 6.6 100.0 Count 172 45 21 35 70 15 11 369 % 46.6 12.2 5.7 9.5 19.0 4.1 3.0 100.0 Count 46 10 4 23 20 4 3 110 % 41.8 9.1 3.6 20.9 18.2 3.6 2.7 100.0 Count 18 2 1 3 14 2 0 40 % 45.0 5.0 2.5 7.5 35.0 5.0 0.0 100.0 Count 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 % 50.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 16.7 100.0 Count 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 5 % 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Count 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 Count 520 200 52 72 144 42 82 1,112 % 46.8 18.0 4.7 6.5 12.9 3.8 7.4 100.0 Count 795 229 74 151 311 49 90 1,699 % 46.8 13.5 4.4 8.9 18.3 2.9 5.3 100.0 Table 25: Is the language mainly spoken in the family of origin an official language of the country of residence of the participant? (PP) N=2,038; n=1,712 Please choose only one of the following: Frequency Valid Percentage Yes 1,438 84.0 No 274 16.0 Total 1,712 100.0 Table 26: Other languages spoken in the participant s family of origin (PP) Does your family of origin (including grandparents) speak at home also languages other than an official language of the country where you live? N=2,038; n=1,710 Frequency Valid Percentage Yes 519 30.4 No 1,191 69.6 Total 1,710 100.0 Table 27: Affiliation to a cultural, ethnic, religious or linguistic minority (PP) N=2,038; n=1,653 Do you belong to a cultural, ethnic, religious or linguistic minority in the country where you live? Frequency Valid Percentage Yes 271 16.4 No 1,382 83.6 Total 1,653 100.0 42 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 28: Living environment of participants (PP) N=2,038; n=1,709 I live mainly in Frequency Valid Percentage a big city (over 1.000.000 people). 465 27.2 a city (100.000 to 1.000.000 people). 544 31.8 a town (15.000 to about 100.000 people). 345 20.2 a small town (3.000 to about 15.000 people). 182 10.6 a village (fewer than 3.000 people). 131 7.7 in the countryside (e.g. on a farm, in an isolated house). 42 2.5 Table 29: Occupation of participants at the time of the project (PP) N=2,038; n=1,693 When I participated in the project, I was mainly in Total 1,709 100.0 Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases in education or training 954 44.9 56.3 employed full-time 340 16.0 20.1 employed part-time 171 8.0 10.1 self-employed 62 2.9 3.7 Unemployed 158 7.4 9.3 a volunteer 319 15.0 18.8 not in paid work (e.g. taking care of children, relatives, household etc.) 33 1.6 1.9 other 89 4.2 5.3 Table 30: Education or training status of participants at the time of the project (PP) N=2,038; n=1,643 When I participated in the project, I was Please choose at most 2 answers: Total 2,126 100.0 125.6 Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases a pupil at school (secondary school student) 413 23.9 25.1 a student at a university, polytechnic etc. 728 42.2 44.3 an apprentice (in vocational education or training) 39 2.3 2.4 an intern/doing a work placement 66 3.8 4.0 doing another type of education or training 134 7.8 8.2 not in education or training 345 20.0 21.0 Total 1,725 100.0 105.0 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 43

Table 31: Occupation of participants at the time of the project by age group (PP) N=2,038; n=1,684 Please choose at most 2 answers: 0-14 (n=8) N % 15-17 (n=106) % of Cases N % 18-25 (n=1,010) % of Cases N % >25 (n=560) % of Cases N % % of Cases in education or training 7 77.8 87.5 88 69.3 83.0 715 56.0 70.8 139 19.7 24.8 employed full-time 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 77 6.0 7.6 262 37.2 46.8 employed part-time 0 0.0 0.0 5 3.9 4.7 80 6.3 7.9 85 12.1 15.2 self-employed 0 0.0 0.0 1 0.8 0.9 15 1.2 1.5 46 6.5 8.2 Unemployed 0 0.0 0.0 1 0.8 0.9 99 7.8 9.8 58 8.2 10.4 a volunteer 1 11.1 12.5 19 15.0 17.9 211 16.5 20.9 88 12.5 15.7 not in a paid work (e.g. taking care of children, relatives, household etc.) 1 11.1 12.5 2 1.6 1.9 22 1.7 2.2 8 1.1 1.4 other 0 0.0 0.0 11 8.7 10.4 58 4.5 5.7 18 2.6 3.2 Total responses 9 100.0 112.5 127 100.0 119.8 1,277 100.0 126.4 704 100.0 125.7 Table 32: Education or training status of participants at the time of the project by age group (PP) N=2,038; n=1,634 Please choose at most 2 answers: a pupil at school (secondary school student) a student at a university, polytechnic etc. an apprentice (in vocational education or training) 0-14 (n=8) N % 15-17 (n=105) % of Cases N % 18-25 (n=1,002) % of Cases N % >25 (n=519) % of Cases N % % of Cases 6 75.0 75.0 96 90.6 91.4 309 29.2 30.8 1 0.2 0.2 1 12.5 12.5 0 0.0 0.0 555 52.4 55.4 166 30.6 32.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 23 2.2 2.3 15 2.8 2.9 an intern/doing a work placement 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 27 2.5 2.7 39 7.2 7.5 doing another type of education or training 0 0.0 0.0 7 6.6 6.7 50 4.7 5.0 76 14.0 14.6 not in education or training 1 12.5 12.5 3 2.8 2.9 96 9.1 9.6 245 45.2 47.2 Total responses 8 100.0 100.0 106 100.0 101.0 1,060 100.0 105.8 542 100.0 104.4 Table 33: Previous travels abroad of participants (PP) N=2,038; n=1,628 Frequency Valid Percentage Never 148 9.1 1 time 95 5.8 2 times 123 7.6 3 to 5 times 374 23.0 6 to 10 times 400 24.6 11 to 20 times 312 19.2 21 to 30 times 87 5.3 more than 30 times 89 5.5 Total 1,628 100.0 44 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 34: The longest period spent abroad (PP) N=2,038; n=1,867 Frequency Valid Percentage 0 weeks 67 3.5 1 week 226 11.7 2-4 weeks 784 40.5 5-8 weeks 198 10.2 9-12 weeks 128 6.6 13-25 weeks 221 11.4 > 25 weeks 310 16.0 Total 1,934 100.0 Table 35: Reasons for previous travels abroad of participants (PP) N=2,038; n=1,624 Please choose all that apply: Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases I went abroad for holidays. 1,275 27.9 78.5 I went abroad with my class at school. 755 16.5 46.5 I participated in a youth exchange. 796 17.4 49.0 I went to school in another country for one semester (term or equivalent) or longer in the framework of an organised programme. 110 2.4 6.8 I lived in another country with my parents. 83 1.8 5.1 I studied abroad for one semester (term or equivalent) or longer during my university studies. 216 4.7 13.3 I did a language course abroad. 219 4.8 13.5 I did a work placement [an internship] abroad. 174 3.8 10.7 I did a vocational training course abroad. 111 2.4 6.8 I worked as an au-pair. 41 0.9 2.5 I had a job abroad. 253 5.5 15.6 I went to another country with my partner. 221 4.8 13.6 I lived abroad for another reason. 221 4.8 13.6 I had never been abroad before this project. 94 2.1 5.8 Table 36: Previous participation in similar projects (PP) N=2,034; n=1,680 Have you participated in a similar project before this project we are asking you about? Frequency Total 4,569 100.0 281.3 Valid Percentage Yes 900 53.6 No 780 46.4 Total 1,680 100.0 Table 37: Number of similar projects participants had taken part in (PP) N=999; n=898 Frequency Valid Percentage 1 231 25.7 2 201 22.4 3 139 15.5 4 74 8.2 5 97 10.8 6 10 103 11.5 11 20 43 4.8 > 20 10 1.1 Total 898 100.0 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 45

Table 38: Compared to the way other people live in your country do you think (PP) N=2,038; n=1,700 Frequency Valid Percentage that you are getting your fair share? 648 38.1 that you are getting more than your fair share? 242 14.2 that you are getting somewhat less than your fair share? 272 16.0 that you are getting much less than your fair share? 113 6.6 I don t know how to answer this. 425 25.0 Total 1,700 100.0 Table 39: Compared to the way other people live in your country do you think by project type (PP) Compared to the way other people live in your country do you think N=2,038; n=1,700 YE (1.1/3.1) YI (1.2) YD (1.3) EVS (2.1) T&N (4.3/3.1) TCP SD (5.1) Total RAY Total that you are getting your fair share? that you are getting more than your fair share? that you are getting somewhat less than your fair share? that you are getting much less than your fair share? I don t know how to answer this. Total Count 295 109 123 55 209 791 % 37.3 13.8 15.5 7.0 26.4 100.0 Count 103 26 48 15 42 234 % 44.0 11.1 20.5 6.4 17.9 100.0 Count 34 22 8 1 9 74 % 45.9 29.7 10.8 1.4 12.2 100.0 Count 53 25 16 12 45 151 % 35.1 16.6 10.6 7.9 29.8 100.0 Count 116 35 53 27 80 311 % 37.3 11.3 17.0 8.7 25.7 100.0 Count 16 8 7 2 12 45 % 35.6 17.8 15.6 4.4 26.7 100.0 Count 31 17 17 1 28 94 % 33.0 18.1 18.1 1.1 29.8 100.0 Count 467 163 191 68 229 1,118 % 41.8 14.6 17.1 6.1 20.5 100.0 % 52.5 18.3 21.5 7.6-100.0 Count 648 242 272 113 425 1,700 % 38.1 14.2 16.0 6.6 25.0 100.0 % 50.8 19.0 21.3 8.9-100.0 46 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 40: Obstacles of participants in their access to education, work and employment, active participation in society and politics, and mobility (PP) N=2,038 Are you confronted with obstacles in your access Yes no don t know to education? Count 402 1,219 64 1,685 % 23.9 72.3 3.8 100.0 to work and employment? Count 763 730 192 1,685 % 45.3 43.3 11.4 100.0 to active participation in society and politics? Count 405 1,024 248 1,677 % 24.2 61.1 14.8 100.0 to mobility? Count 401 1,109 167 1,677 % 23.9 66.1 10.0 100.0 Count 1,227 2,766 438 4,431 Total RAY % 27.7 62.4 9.9 100.0 % 30.7 69.3-100.0 Count 1,971 4,082 671 6,724 Total % 29.3 60.7 10.0 100.0 % 32.6 67.4-100.0 Total Table 41: Young people with fewer opportunities participating in the projects (PL) N=503; n=451 Did young people with fewer opportunities participate in the project? Frequency Valid Percentage Yes 230 51.0 No 126 27.9 Don t remember/don t know 95 21.1 Total 451 100.0 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 47

Project leaders/team members Table 42: Number of project leaders by gender comparison 2011 and 2012 (PL) PL 2011 2012 Frequency Valid Percentage Frequency Valid Percentage Female 736 61.1 294 58.4 Male 469 38.9 209 41.6 Total 1,205 100.0 503 100.0 Table 43: Number of project leaders by gender and project type (PL) N=503 Female Male Total YE (1.1/3.1) Count 136 86 222 % 61.3 38.7 100.0 YI (1.2) Count 36 34 70 % 51.4 48.6 100.0 YD (1.3) Count 11 11 22 % 50.0 50.0 100.0 EVS (2.1) Count 55 30 85 % 64.7 35.3 100.0 T&N (4.3/3.1) Count 49 46 95 % 51.6 48.4 100.0 SD (5.1) Count 7 2 9 % 77.8 22.2 100.0 Total Count 294 209 503 % 58.4 41.6 100.0 Table 44: Age of project leaders (PL) Standard N=503; n=495 Mean deviation n YE (1.1/3.1) 34.0 10.9 218 YI (1.2) 30.3 9.6 67 YD (1.3) 35.9 12.6 22 EVS (2.1) 34.8 8.8 84 T&N (4.3/3.1) 35.4 9.9 95 SD (5.1) 27.4 6.8 9 Total 33.9 10.3 495 Table 45: Foreign language skills of project leaders (PL) N=503; n=495 Frequency Valid Percentage 0 1 0.2 1 100 20.2 2 215 43.4 3 125 25.3 4 36 7.3 5 13 2.6 6 4 0.8 7 1 0.2 Total 495 100.0 48 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 46: Highest educational attainment of project leaders by project type (PL) N=503; n=500 YE (1.1/3.1) YI (1.2) YD (1.3) EVS (2.1) T&N (4.3/3.1) SD (5.1) Total RAY Total Primary school Lower secondary school Technical school Upper secondary school Upper vocational school University, Polytechnic, postsecondary/tertiary level College Count 2 1 0 23 8 187 221 Total % 0.9 0.5 0.0 10.4 3.6 84.6 100.0 Count 0 2 2 12 4 49 69 % 0.0 2.9 2.9 17.4 5.8 71.0 100.0 Count 0 0 0 3 2 17 22 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 9.1 77.3 100.0 Count 0 1 4 3 3 73 84 % 0.0 1.2 4.8 3.6 3.6 86.9 100.0 Count 1 0 0 8 10 76 95 % 1.1 0.0 0.0 8.4 10.5 80.0 100.0 Count 0 0 1 2 1 5 9 % 0.0 0.0 11.1 22.2 11.1 55.6 100.0 Count 3 4 7 35 22 269 340 % 0.9 1.2 2.1 10.3 6.5 79.1 100.0 Count 3 4 7 51 28 407 500 % 0.6 0.8 1.4 10.2 5.6 81.4 100.0 Table 47: Highest educational attainment of project leaders comparison 2011 and 2012 2011 2012 Frequency Valid Valid Frequency Percentage Percentage Primary school 1 0.1 3 0.6 Lower secondary school 17 1.4 4 0.8 Technical school 21 1.7 7 1.4 Upper secondary school 163 13.5 51 10.2 Upper vocational school 64 5.3 28 5.6 University, Polytechnic, postsecondary/tertiary level College 940 77.9 407 81.4 Total 1,206 100.0 500 100.0 Table 48: Educational attainment project leaders expect to achieve (PL) N=503; n=397 Frequency Valid Percentage Primary school 2 0.5 Lower secondary school 5 1.3 Technical school 6 1.5 Upper secondary school 9 2.3 Upper vocational school 18 4.5 University, Polytechnic, post-secondary/tertiary level College 357 89.9 Total 397 100.0 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 49

Table 49: Qualifications of project leaders (PL) Youth work Social work N=503 Did you obtain any specific qualification in the field of: Yes No Total Educational/pedagogic work Other Table 50: Qualifications of project leaders/2 (PL) Total RAY Total Count 245 147 392 % 62.5 37.5 100.0 Count 139 167 306 % 45.4 54.6 100.0 Count 209 140 349 % 59.9 40.1 100.0 Count 76 119 195 % 39.0 61.0 100.0 Count 479 371 850 % 56.4 43.6 100.0 Count 669 573 1,242 % 53.9 46.1 100.0 N=321 Did you obtain any qualification for youth work, social work or educational/pedagogical work Yes No Total through formal education (e.g. upper vocational school, polytechnic, university etc.)? through non-formal education (e.g. seminars, workshops, training courses etc.)? through other means of education? Total RAY Count 201 76 277 % 72.6 27.4 100.0 Count 264 18 282 % 93.6 6.4 100.0 Count 140 62 202 % 69.3 30.7 100.0 Count 408 118 526 % 77.6 22.4 100.0 Count 605 156 761 Total % 79.5 20.5 100.0 (Note: dependency question; only those ticking yes for youth work, social work or educational/pedagogic work received this question) Table 51: Project leaders previous involvement in EU youth programmes (PL) N=503; n=453 Did you participate already before in projects organised in the framework of Youth in Action or a preceding EU youth programme? Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases Yes, as project leader/member of the project team 260 46.8 57.4 Yes, as participant (including in projects/training for youth workers/leaders) 175 31.5 38.6 No 121 21.8 26.7 Total 556 100.0 122.7 50 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 52: Project leaders previous involvement in EU youth programmes as participants (PL) N=175; n=175 Please choose all that apply: Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases Youth exchange 118 30.2 67.4 Youth initiative 39 10.0 22.3 Youth democracy project 27 6.9 15.4 European voluntary service 35 9.0 20.0 Training and networking 106 27.1 60.6 TCP activity (an activity within the Training and Cooperation Plan of the National Agency) Meeting between young people and persons responsible for youth policy 37 9.5 21.1 25 6.4 14.3 I do not remember 4 1.0 2.3 Total 391 100.0 223.4 (Note: dependency question; only those ticking yes as a participant received this question) Table 53: Involvement in the project on a voluntary or employed basis (PL) N=503, n=461 In was involved in this project Frequency Valid Percentage on a voluntary, unpaid basis. 284 61.6 on a full-time employment basis. 105 22.8 on a part-time employment basis. 72 15.6 Total 461 100.0 Table 54: Involvement in the project on a voluntary or employed basis by project type (PL) I was involved in this project YE (1.1/3.1) YI (1.2) YD (1.3) EVS (2.1) T&N (4.3/3.1) SD (5.1) N=503; n=461 Total RAY Total on a voluntary, unpaid basis. on a full-time employment basis. on a part-time employment basis. Total Count 148 39 17 204 % 72.5 19.1 8.3 100.0 Count 54 7 5 66 % 81.8 10.6 7.6 100.0 Count 12 4 3 19 % 63.2 21.1 15.8 100.0 Count 20 28 29 77 % 26.0 36.4 37.7 100.0 Count 46 26 15 87 % 52.9 29.9 17.2 100.0 Count 4 1 3 8 % 50.0 12.5 37.5 100.0 Count 188 77 50 315 % 59.7 24.4 15.9 100.0 Count 284 105 72 461 % 61.6 22.8 15.6 100.0 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 51

Table 55: Project leader role/function in the project (PL) N=503; n=416 My role/function in this project was : Frequency Valid Percentage primarily educational (socio-pedagogic). 66 15.9 primarily organisational. 130 31.3 equally educational and organisational. 220 52.9 Total 416 100.0 Table 56: Project leader role/function in the project by project type (PL) My role/function in this project was YE (1.1/3.1) YI (1.2) YD (1.3) EVS (2.1) T&N (4.3/3.1) SD (5.1) N=503; n=416 Total RAY Total primarily educational (sociopedagogic). primarily organisational. equally educational and organisational. Total Count 35 44 103 182 % 19.2 24.2 56.6 100.0 Count 3 33 30 66 % 4.5 50.0 45.5 100.0 Count 3 5 7 15 % 20.0 33.3 46.7 100.0 Count 5 27 40 72 % 6.9 37.5 55.6 100.0 Count 19 19 35 73 % 26.0 26.0 47.9 100.0 Count 1 2 5 8 % 12.5 25.0 62.5 100.0 Count 35 98 160 293 % 11.9 33.4 54.6 100.0 Count 66 130 220 416 % 15.9 31.3 52.9 100.0 52 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 57: Project leader involvement in the project extent (PL) N=503; n=459 I was directly involved in the project activities Frequency Valid Percentage throughout/most of the time. 356 77.6 for more than half of the project. 51 11.1 for less than half of the project. 41 8.9 hardly/not at all. 11 2.4 Total 459 100.0 Table 58: Project leader involvement in the project (extent) by project type (PL) N=503; n=459 I was directly involved in the project activities throughout/most of the time. for more than half of the project. for less than half of the project. YE (1.1/3.1) Count 169 20 11 2 202 hardly/not at all. Total % 83.7 9.9 5.4 1.0 100.0 YI (1.2) Count 57 8 1 0 66 % 86.4 12.1 1.5 0.0 100.0 YD (1.3) Count 14 2 3 0 19 % 73.7 10.5 15.8 0.0 100.0 EVS (2.1) Count 47 8 16 6 77 % 61.0 10.4 20.8 7.8 100.0 T&N (4.3/3.1) Count 62 13 9 3 87 % 71.3 14.9 10.3 3.4 100.0 SD (5.1) Count 7 0 1 0 8 Total RAY Total % 87.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 100.0 Count 263 27 18 4 312 % 84.3 8.7 5.8 1.3 100.0 Count 356 51 41 11 459 % 77.6 11.1 8.9 2.4 100.0 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 53

Beneficiaries and partners Table 59: Type of organisation/group/body (PL) N=503; n=451 A local or regional public body [e.g., municipality, regional government/authority etc.] A non-profit or non-governmental organisation (e.g. an association, NGO, denominational organisation, non-profit corpora Frequency Valid Percentage 94 20.8 300 66.5 An informal group of young people 57 12.6 Table 60: Type of organisation/group/body by project type (PL) Total 451 100.0 My organisation/group/body is: YE (1.1/3.1) YI (1.2) YD (1.3) EVS (2.1) T&N (4.3/3.1) SD (5.1) N=503; n=451 Total RAY Total A local or regional public body [e.g., municipality, regional government/authority etc.] A non-profit or nongovernmental organisation (e.g. an association, NGO, denominational organisation, non-profit corpora An informal group of young people Total Count 61 109 29 199 % 30.7 54.8 14.6 100.0 Count 1 44 20 65 % 1.5 67.7 30.8 100.0 Count 2 13 2 17 % 11.8 76.5 11.8 100.0 Count 15 64 0 79 % 19.0 81.0 0.0 100.0 Count 14 67 3 84 % 16.7 79.8 3.6 100.0 Count 1 3 3 7 % 14.3 42.9 42.9 100.0 Count 68 197 44 309 % 22.0 63.8 14.2 100.0 Count 94 300 57 451 % 20.8 66.5 12.6 100.0 54 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 61: Focus of organisation/group/body (PL) N=503; n=449 Organised youth work (e.g. youth organisation, youth association, etc.) Open youth work (e.g. youth centre [premises where young people can meet during their leisure time], street work, etc.) [including mobile youth work] Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases 160 19.8 35.6 78 9.7 17.4 Youth counselling, youth information 66 8.2 14.7 Youth services 34 4.2 7.6 Out-of-school youth education (non-formal youth education) 92 11.4 20.5 Youth exchange 93 11.5 20.7 Other types of education and training 59 7.3 13.1 Socio-political work (e.g. promoting human rights, integration, social justice, environmental protection, sustainable development etc. 71 8.8 15.8 Social work/social services 40 5.0 8.9 Cultural activities 85 10.5 18.9 Other 29 3.6 6.5 Total 807 100.0 179.7 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 55

5.3 Implementation of the project Access Table 62: Paying participation fees (PP) N=2,038; n=2,033 Paying my financial contribution for participating in the project [participation fee for this project] (e.g. travel, lodging and other expenses) was Frequency Valid Percentage easy for me 1,059 52.1 difficult for me 264 13.0 not necessary, I did not have to pay anything 710 34.9 Total 2,033 100.0 Table 63: Language(s) used in the project (PP) N=2.038; n=1.714 Responses Percentage N Percentage of Cases There was one language which was used by all participants. 1,025 30.0 59.8 I could fully participate in the project by using my first language. 374 10.9 21.8 I used also another language (or other languages) than my first language. 1,295 37.9 75.6 I had difficulties to participate in the project for language reasons. 124 3.6 7.2 The project team helped me to understand, when it was necessary. 599 17.5 34.9 Total 3,417 100.0 199.4 Table 64: Language(s) used in the project by sending/hosting (PP) Hosting Sending N=2,038; n=1,714 Please choose all that apply: % of % of N % Cases N % Cases There was one language which was used by all participants. 408 28.7 56.9 617 30.9 61.9 I could fully participate in the project by using my first language. 257 18.1 35.8 117 5.9 11.7 I used also another language (or other languages) than my first language. 486 34.2 67.8 809 40.6 81.1 I had difficulties to participate in the project for language reasons. 44 3.1 6.1 80 4.0 8.0 The project team helped me to understand, when it was necessary. 227 16.0 31.7 372 18.6 37.3 Total responses 1,422 100.0 198.3 1,995 100.0 200.1 Table 65: Satisfaction with the project (PP) N=2,038 Now that the project is over: Yes No Total I already recommended to other people participating in a similar project Count 1,891 144 2,035 because it allows the development of useful competences. % 92.9 7.1 100.0 I plan to participate in a similar project in the next years because I could Count 1,766 262 2,028 further develop useful competences. % 87.1 12.9 100.0 Total RAY Count 2,393 293 2,686 % 89.1 10.9 100.0 Total Count 3,657 406 4,063 % 90.0 10.0 100.0 Table 66: Intention to participate in a similar project in the future (PP) 56 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 N=2,038; n=2,028 Now that the project is over: I plan to participate in a similar project in the next years because I could further develop useful competences. Frequency Valid Percentage Yes 1,766 87.1 No 262 12.9 Total 2,028 100.0 Table 67: Reasons to participate in a similar project in the future (PP) N=1,766; n=1,758 I plan to participate in a similar project because I could further develop the following competences: (multiple responses) Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases Communication in my first language (mother tongue) 400 3.6 22.8 Communication in a foreign language 1,474 13.1 83.8 Mathematical competence 89 0.8 5.1 Basic competences in science and technology 280 2.5 15.9 Digital competence 306 2.7 17.4 Learning to learn 850 7.6 48.4 Interpersonal and social competence 1,409 12.6 80.1 Intercultural competence 1,433 12.8 81.5 Civic competence 837 7.5 47.6 Cultural awareness and expression (music, literature, arts, etc. for intercultural competence see the option further above) 1,170 10.4 66.6 Sense of initiative 1,118 10.0 63.6 Sense of entrepreneurship 881 7.9 50.1 Media literacy 497 4.4 28.3 For other reasons 476 4.2 27.1 Total 11,220 100.0 638.2 (Note: dependency question; this question was only received if the response to the previous question was yes ) Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 57

Table 68: Reasons to participate in a similar project in the future by project type (PP) N=1,766; n=1,758 (multiple responses) Communication in my first language (mother tongue) Communication in a foreign language YE (1.1/3.1) (n=841) N % YI (1.2) (n=236) % of Cases N % YD (1.3) (n=78) % of Cases N % EVS (2.1) (n=136) % of Cases N % T&N (4.3/3.1) (n=322) % of Cases N % TCP (n=49) % of Cases N % SD (5.1) (n=96) % of Cases N % 163 3.0 19.4 80 5.5 33.9 30 6.6 38.5 24 2.6 17.6 44 2.1 13.7 12 3.9 24.5 47 7.9 49.0 782 14.5 93.0 150 10.4 63.6 60 13.2 76.9 126 13.8 92.6 273 13.0 84.8 38 12.5 77.6 45 7.6 46.9 Mathematical competence 37 0.7 4.4 12.8 5.1 1 0.2 1.3 8.9 5.9 18 0.9 5.6 4 1.3 8.2 9 1.5 9.4 Basic competences in science and technology 147 2.7 17.5 33 2.3 14.0 8 1.8 10.3 24 2.6 17.6 47 2.2 14.6 6 2.0 12.2 15 2.5 15.6 Digital competence 144 2.7 17.1 43 3.0 18.2 11 2.4 14.1 21 2.3 15.4 65 3.1 20.2 8 2.6 16.3 14 2.4 14.6 Learning to learn 404 7.5 48.0 98 6.8 41.5 20 4.4 25.6 71 7.8 52.2 190 9.0 59.0 30 9.8 61.2 37 6.2 38.5 % of Cases Interpersonal and social competence 675 12.5 80.3 185 12.8 78.4 59 13.0 75.6 121 13.2 89.0 250 11.9 77.6 32 10.5 65.3 87 14.6 90.6 Intercultural competence 722 13.4 85.9 159 11.0 67.4 53 11.7 67.9 121 13.2 89.0 286 13.6 88.8 41 13.4 83.7 51 8.6 53.1 Civic competence 373 6.9 44.4 106 7.3 44.9 44 9.7 56.4 64 7.0 47.1 168 8.0 52.2 21 6.9 42.9 61 10.3 63.5 Cultural awareness and expression (music, literature, arts, etc. for intercultural competence see the option further above) 612 11.3 72.8 154 10.7 65.3 34 7.5 43.6 92 10.1 67.6 202 9.6 62.7 31 10.2 63.3 45 7.6 46.9 Sense of initiative 517 9.6 61.5 152 10.5 64.4 51 11.3 65.4 96 10.5 70.6 208 9.9 64.6 31 10.2 63.3 63 10.6 65.6 Sense of entrepreneurship 402 7.4 47.8 132 9.1 55.9 40 8.8 51.3 64 7.0 47.1 164 7.8 50.9 24 7.9 49.0 55 9.3 57.3 Media literacy 213 3.9 25.3 77 5.3 32.6 23 5.1 29.5 32 3.5 23.5 97 4.6 30.1 14 4.6 28.6 41 6.9 42.7 For other reasons 217 4.0 25.8 64 4.4 27.1 19 4.2 24.4 51 5.6 37.5 88 4.2 27.3 13 4.3 26.5 24 4.0 25.0 Total responses 5,408 100.0 643.0 1,445 100.0 612.3 453 100.0 580.8 915 100.0 672.8 2,100 100.0 652.2 305 100.0 622.4 594 100.0 618.8 58 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 5.4 Effects of the projects Competence development Table 69: Skills development of participants (PP) N=2,038 Through my participation in this project I learned better... to say what I think with conviction in discussions.... to communicate with people who speak another language.... to cooperate in a team.... to produce media content on my own (printed, audio-visual, electronic).... to develop a good idea and put it into practice.... to negotiate joint solutions when there are different viewpoints.... to achieve something in the interest of the community or society.... to think logically and draw conclusions.... to identify opportunities for my personal or professional future.... to improve my learning or to have more fun when learning.... to discuss political topics seriously.... to plan and carry out my learning independently.... to express myself creatively or artistically.... to get along with people who have a different cultural background. Total RAY Total Not at all Not so much To some extent Definitely Total Count 57 254 1,013 710 2,034 % 2.8 12.5 49.8 34.9 100.0 Count 96 149 490 1,295 2,030 % 4.7 7.3 24.1 63.8 100.0 Count 23 101 657 1,243 2,024 % 1.1 5.0 32.5 61.4 100.0 Count 240 591 728 472 2,031 % 11.8 29.1 35.8 23.2 100.0 Count 51 220 871 891 2,033 % 2.5 10.8 42.8 43.8 100.0 Count 31 155 860 987 2,033 % 1.5 7.6 42.3 48.5 100.0 Count 48 193 764 1,026 2,031 % 2.4 9.5 37.6 50.5 100.0 Count 74 416 928 610 2,028 % 3.6 20.5 45.8 30.1 100.0 Count 78 356 869 723 2,026 % 3.8 17.6 42.9 35.7 100.0 Count 96 364 712 857 2,029 % 4.7 17.9 35.1 42.2 100.0 Count 303 604 660 455 2,022 % 15.0 29.9 32.6 22.5 100.0 Count 149 507 809 561 2,026 % 7.4 25.0 39.9 27.7 100.0 Count 99 324 734 871 2,028 % 4.9 16.0 36.2 42.9 100.0 Count 51 104 436 1,437 2,028 % 2.5 5.1 21.5 70.9 100.0 Count 1,005 2,862 6,744 8,149 18,760 % 5.4 15.3 35.9 43.4 100.0 Count 1,396 4,338 10,531 12,138 28,403 % 4.9 15.3 37.1 42.7 100.00 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 59

Table 70: Skills development of participants perception by project leaders (PL) N=503 Which of the following skills did the participants develop through their participation in the project?... to say what they think with conviction in discussions.... to communicate with people who speak another language.... to cooperate in a team. to produce media content on their own (printed, audio-visual, electronic).... to develop a good idea and put it into practice.... to negotiate joint solutions when there are different viewpoints. to achieve something in the interest of the community or society.... to think logically and draw conclusions.... to identify opportunities for their personal or professional future.... to improve learning or have more fun when learning.... to discuss political topics seriously.... to plan and carry out their learning independently.... to express themselves creatively or artistically.... to get along with people in their country whose cultural background is different from theirs. Total RAY Total Not at all true Not very true Somewhat true Very true No opinion or can t judge Total Count 2 18 164 299 18 501 % 0.4 3.6 32.7 59.7 3.6 100.0 Count 29 31 76 354 10 500 % 5.8 6.2 15.2 70.8 2.0 100.0 Count 1 9 73 405 10 498 % 0.2 1.8 14.7 81.3 2.0 100.0 Count 26 86 183 186 19 500 % 5.2 17.2 36.6 37.2 3.8 100.0 Count 2 25 129 328 17 501 % 0.4 5.0 25.7 65.5 3.4 100.0 Count 1 27 146 314 14 502 % 0.2 5.4 29.1 62.5 2.8 100.0 Count 3 14 118 343 25 503 % 0.6 2.8 23.5 68.2 5.0 100.0 Count 13 34 216 216 19 498 % 2.6 6.8 43.4 43.4 3.8 100.0 Count 11 46 185 226 31 499 % 2.2 9.2 37.1 45.3 6.2 100.0 Count 6 39 151 277 26 499 % 1.2 7.8 30.3 55.5 5.2 100.0 Count 44 109 148 162 38 501 % 8.8 21.8 29.5 32.3 7.6 100.0 Count 11 68 180 208 35 502 % 2.2 13.5 35.9 41.4 7.0 100.0 Count 7 43 121 309 22 502 % 1.4 8.6 24.1 61.6 4.4 100.0 Count 10 32 87 338 33 500 % 2.0 6.4 17.4 67.6 6.6 100.0 Count 137 401 1,346 2,676 204 4,764 % 2.9 8.4 28.3 56.2 4.3 100.0 % 3.0 8.8 29.5 58.7-100.0 Count 166 581 1,977 3,965 317 7,006 % 2.4 8.3 28.2 56.6 4.5 100.0 % 2.5 8.7 29.6 59.3-100.0 60 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 71: Skills development of participants self-perception by participants (PP) and perception by the project leaders (PL) comparison 2011 and 2012 PP: Through my participation in this project I learned better PL: The participants have learned better Sum of somewhat true and very true PP 2011 PL 2011 PP 2012 PL 2012 % Mod Rank % Mod Rank % Mod Rank % Mod Rank... to say what I/they think with conviction in discussions. 78.2 3 7 94.0 4 4 84.7 3 7 92.4 4 2... to communicate with people who speak another language. 82.3 4 6 91.9 4 5 87.9 4 5 86.0 4 7... to cooperate in a team. 90.3 4 1 98.8 4 1 93.9 4 1 96.0 4 1... to produce media content on my own (printed, audio-visual, electronic). 55.1 3 13 73.4 4 13 59.1 3 13 73.8 4 13... to develop a good idea and put it into practice. 82.7 3 4 94.7 4 2 86.7 4 6 91.2 4 5... to negotiate joint solutions when there are different viewpoints. 85.4 3 3 94.2 4 3 90.9 4 3 91.6 4 4... to achieve something in the interest of the community or society. 82.6 3 5 91.8 4 6 88.1 4 4 91.7 4 3... to think logically and draw conclusions. 74.6 3 8 86.0 3 9 75.8 3 11 86.7 3/4 6... to identify opportunities for my/their personal or professional future. 72.9 3 10 77.3 3 11 78.6 3 9 82.4 4 11... to improve my/their learning or to have more fun when learning. 69.6 4 11 84.8 4 10 77.3 4 10 85.8 4 8... to discuss political topics seriously. 53.1 3 14 64.8 3 14 55.1 3 14 61.9 4 14... to plan and carry out my/their learning independently. 61.5 3 12 76.8 3 12 67.6 3 12 77.3 4 12... to express myself/themselves creatively or artistically. 73.5 4 9 86.7 4 8 79.1 4 8 85.7 4 9... to get along with people who have a different cultural background. 88.1 4 2 91.2 4 7 92.4 4 2 85.0 4 10 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 61

Table 72: Skills development of project leaders (PL) N=503 Which of the following skills could you yourself develop through your involvement in the project?... to say what I think with conviction in discussions.... to communicate with people who speak another language.... to cooperate in a team.... to produce media content on my own (printed, audio-visual, electronic).... to develop a good idea and put it into practice.... to negotiate joint solutions when there are different viewpoints.... to achieve something in the interest of the community or society.... to think logically and draw conclusions.... to identify opportunities for my personal or professional future.... to improve learning or to have more fun when learning.... to discuss political topics seriously.... to plan and carry out my learning independently.... to express myself creatively or artistically.... to get along with people who have a different cultural background. Total RAY Total Not at all true Not very true Somewhat true Very true Total Count 9 31 223 237 500 % 1.8 6.2 44.6 47.4 100.0 Count 42 29 140 291 502 % 8.4 5.8 27.9 58.0 100.0 Count 3 19 152 326 500 % 0.6 3.8 30.4 65.2 100.0 Count 33 111 193 163 500 % 6.6 22.2 38.6 32.6 100.0 Count 6 30 184 279 499 % 1.2 6.0 36.9 55.9 100.0 Count 7 33 178 284 502 % 1.4 6.6 35.5 56.6 100.0 Count 3 34 177 288 502 % 0.6 6.8 35.3 57.4 100.0 Count 16 57 196 229 498 % 3.2 11.4 39.4 46.0 100.0 Count 26 86 173 213 498 % 5.2 17.3 34.7 42.8 100.0 Count 17 77 184 220 498 % 3.4 15.5 36.9 44.2 100.0 Count 63 120 158 157 498 % 12.7 24.1 31.7 31.5 100.0 Count 25 83 201 190 499 % 5.0 16.6 40.3 38.1 100.0 Count 24 71 155 249 499 % 4.8 14.2 31.1 49.9 100.0 Count 14 23 136 327 500 % 2.8 4.6 27.2 65.4 100.0 Count 230 572 1,663 2,292 4,757 % 4,8 12,0 35,0 48,2 100,0 Count 288 804 2,450 3,453 6,995 % 4.1 11.5 35.0 49.4 100.0 62 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 5.5 Project methods and settings Table 73: Methods used in the project/1 perception by participants (PP) N=2,038 The project used exercises, games and methods that were new to me. triggered my interest for the project topics. addressed important topics. were somewhat childish. helped me learn something more easily. would also be suited for school or university. were useless for learning something valuable. Total RAY Total I completely disagree 1 2 3 I fully agree Total Count 93 238 511 609 552 2,003 % 4.6 11.9 25.5 30.4 27.6 100.0 Count 39 148 409 622 795 2,013 % 1.9 7.4 20.3 30.9 39.5 100.0 Count 44 167 377 624 798 2,010 % 2.2 8.3 18.8 31.0 39.7 100.0 Count 819 532 335 206 123 2,015 % 40.6 26.4 16.6 10.2 6.1 100.0 Count 149 282 528 566 490 2,015 % 7.4 14.0 26.2 28.1 24.3 100.0 Count 139 268 431 509 669 2,016 % 6.9 13.3 21.4 25.2 33.2 100.0 Count 1,380 230 177 115 118 2,020 % 68.3 11.4 8.8 5.7 5.8 100.0 Count 1,889 1,201 1,736 2,046 2,416 9,288 % 20.3 12.9 18.7 22.0 26.0 100.0 Count 2,663 1,865 2,768 3,251 3,545 14,092 % 18.9 13.2 19.6 23.1 25.2 100.0 Table 74: Methods used in the project/1 (perception by participants) by previous similar project experience (PP) The project used exercises, games and methods Number of similar projects you participated in (n=898) that (slider/5-point-scale sum of code 3 and fully agree*) 0 (n=782) 1 (n=231) 2 (n=201) 3-4 (n=213) 5-10 (n=200) 11 (n=53) All were new to me. 62.7 64.8 59.3 53.1 45.2 46.2 58.8 triggered my interest for the project topics. 71.7 72.2 70.9 74.2 73.7 64.7 72.0 addressed important topics. 69.1 73.8 72.2 73.2 76.3 76.9 71.8 were somewhat childish. 18.6 17.7 14.6 11.7 9.6 7.5 15.6 helped me learn something more easily. 53.3 51.1 50.3 57.7 52.0 62.3 53.4 would also be suited for school or university. 58.5 59.7 55.8 58.7 61.3 66.0 59.0 were useless for learning something valuable. 13.5 10.8 9.5 8.0 12.1 17.0 12.0 Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 63

Figure 1: Methods used in the project/1 (perception by participants) by previous similar project experience (PP) The project used exercises, games and methods that... Number of similar projects you participated in Table 75: Methods used in the project/2 perception by project leaders (PL) N=503 During the project exercises, games and methods were applied that... I used for the first time. I had used once or twice before. I had used more often before. I already knew well how to implement. I got to know through youth projects. I got to know through youth work training. Total RAY Total I disagree completely 1 2 I fully agree Total Count 98 104 141 145 488 % 20.1 21.3 28.9 29.7 100.0 Count 66 129 168 109 472 % 14.0 27.3 35.6 23.1 100.0 Count 116 127 100 135 478 % 24.3 26.6 20.9 28.2 100.0 Count 47 94 152 180 473 % 9.9 19.9 32.1 38.1 100.0 Count 39 98 128 210 475 % 8.0 21.0 27.0 44.0 100.0 Count 88 79 127 181 475 % 19.0 17.0 27.0 38.0 100.0 Count 304 432 556 667 1,959 % 15.5 22.1 28.4 34.0 100.0 Count 454 631 816 960 2,861 % 15.9 22.1 28.5 33.5 100.0 64 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 76: Methods used in the project/2 (perception by project leaders) by previous experience of project leaders (PL) During the project exercises, games and Number of previous EU-youth projects as a project leader/ methods were applied that team member (n=252) (slider/4-point-scale addition of code 2 and 0 1 2 3-4 5-10 11 fully agree) (n=121) (n=30) (n=49) (n=46) (n=82) (n=41) All I used for the first time. 75.7 58.6 46.9 46.7 51.3 40.5 57.6 I had used once or twice before. 58.5 53.6 55.1 63.6 61.5 51.4 58.3 I had used more often before. 42.8 39.3 41.7 55.6 67.5 73.0 52.8 I already knew well how to implement. 65.2 78.6 64.6 75.0 83.5 80.6 73.2 I got to know through youth projects. 60.7 64.3 70.8 68.2 80.0 86.1 70.4 I got to know through youth work training. 47.3 60.7 64.6 68.2 79.7 86.5 65.0 Figure 2: Methods used in the project/2 (perception by project leaders) by previous experience of project leaders (PL) During the project exercises, games and methods were applied that... Number of previous EU-youth projects as a project leader/team member Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 65

Table 77: Methods used in the project /3 (PP) N=2,038; n=2,029 The following activities, exercises, games and methods were part of the programme of the project in which I participated: Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases Presentations/input by experts/project leaders 1,512 9.9 74.5 Presentations/input by participants 1,660 10.9 81.8 Discussions 1,763 11.6 86.9 Role plays, simulations 1,260 8.3 62.1 Artistic methods (theatre, music, painting etc.) 1,247 8.2 61.5 Field exercises (exploring the environment of the project venue) 1,277 8.4 62.9 Trying out what was learned during the project 1,197 7.9 59.0 Using digital or online media 1,101 7.2 54.3 Individual reflection or reflection in a group 1,541 10.1 75.9 Advice or mentoring by a project leader/member of the project team 1,217 8.0 60.0 Outdoor or sports activities 1,376 9.0 67.8 Other 94 0.6 4.6 Table 78: Methods used in the project /3 (PL) N=503 The following activities, exercises, games and methods were part of the programme of this project: Total 15,245 100.0 751.4 Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases Presentations/input by experts/project leaders 364 9.6 73.1 Presentations/input by participants 411 10.8 82.5 Discussions 432 11.4 86.7 Role plays, simulations 277 7.3 55.6 Artistic methods (theatre, music, painting etc.) 308 8.1 61.8 Field exercises (exploring the environment of the project venue) 314 8.3 63.1 Trying out what was learned during the project 314 8.3 63.1 Using digital or online media 301 7.9 60.4 Individual reflection or reflection in a group 399 10.5 80.1 Advice to or mentoring of participants by a project leader/member of the project team 307 8.1 61.6 Outdoor or sports activities 334 8.8 67.1 Other 39 1.0 7.8 Total 3,800 100.0 763.1 66 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 79: Methods used in the project /3 by project type (PP) N=2,038; n=2,029 (multiple responses) Presentations/input by experts/project leaders YE (1.1/3.1) (n=937) N % YI (1.2) (n=282) % of Cases N % YD (1.3) (n=93) % of Cases N % EVS (2.1) (n=181) % of Cases N % T&N (4.3/3.1) (n=364) % of Cases N % TCP (n=53) % of Cases N % SD (5.1) (n=119) % of Cases N % 695 9.3 74.2 181 9.2 64.2 73 12.4 78.5 108 9.2 59.7 315 11.1 86.5 45 11.9 84.9 95 12.1 79.8 Presentations/input by participants 812 10.8 86.7 188 9.5 66.7 77 13.1 82.8 122 10.3 67.4 314 11.0 86.3 45 11.9 84.9 102 13.0 85.7 Discussions 822 11.0 87.7 227 11.5 80.5 88 15.0 94.6 129 10.9 71.3 335 11.8 92.0 51 13.5 96.2 111 14.2 93.3 Role plays, simulations 639 8.5 68.2 138 7.0 48.9 59 10.1 63.4 84 7.1 46.4 258 9.1 70.9 38 10.0 71.7 44 5.6 37.0 Artistic methods (theatre, music, painting etc.) Field exercises (exploring the environment of the project venue) Trying out what was learned during the project 683 9.1 72.9 181 9.2 64.2 19 3.2 20.4 99 8.4 54.7 202 7.1 55.5 21 5.5 39.6 42 5.4 35.3 686 9.2 73.2 169 8.6 59.9 32 5.5 34.4 104 8.8 57.5 222 7.8 61.0 22 5.8 41.5 42 5.4 35.3 551 7.4 58.8 184 9.3 65.2 42 7.2 45.2 91 7.7 50.3 233 8.2 64.0 29 7.7 54.7 67 8.5 56.3 Using digital or online media 541 7.2 57.7 149 7.5 52.8 45 7.7 48.4 83 7.0 45.9 205 7.2 56.3 17 4.5 32.1 61 7.8 51.3 Individual reflection or reflection in a group Advice or mentoring by a project leader/member of the project team 714 9.5 76.2 197 10.0 69.9 60 10.2 64.5 131 11.1 72.4 299 10.5 82.1 45 11.9 84.9 95 12.1 79.8 521 7.0 55.6 178 9.0 63.1 56 9.5 60.2 104 8.8 57.5 234 8.2 64.3 41 10.8 77.4 83 10.6 69.7 Outdoor or sports activities 774 10.3 82.6 172 8.7 61.0 33 5.6 35.5 114 9.7 63.0 220 7.7 60.4 23 6.1 43.4 40 5.1 33.6 Other 56 0.7 6.0 10 0.5 3.5 3 0.5 3.2 11 0.9 6.1 10 0.4 2.7 2 0.5 3.8 2 0.3 1.7 Total responses 7,494 100.0 799.8 1,974 100.0 700.0 587 100.0 631.2 1,180 100.0 651.9 2,847 100.0 782.1 379 100.0 715.1 784 100.0 658.8 % of Cases Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 67

Table 80: Methods used in the project /3 by project type (PL) N=503; n=498 (multiple responses) YE (1.1/3.1) (n=222) N % YI (1.2) (n=70) % of Cases N % YD (1.3) (n=22) % of Cases N % EVS (2.1) (n=81) % of Cases N % T&N (4.3/3.1) (n=94) % of Cases N % SD (5.1) (n=9) % of Cases N % Presentations/input by experts/project leaders 169 9.2 76.1 44 9.0 62.9 20 11.5 90.9 39 7.6 48.1 84 11.7 89.4 8 12.3 88.9 Presentations/input by participants 197 10.7 88.7 48 9.8 68.6 19 10.9 86.4 54 10.5 66.7 84 11.7 89.4 9 13.8 100.0 Discussions 191 10.4 86.0 60 12.2 85.7 21 12.1 95.5 64 12.5 79.0 87 12.2 92.6 9 13.8 100.0 Role plays, simulations 148 8.0 66.7 33 6.7 47.1 14 8.0 63.6 26 5.1 32.1 52 7.3 55.3 4 6.2 44.4 Artistic methods (theatre, music, painting etc.) 164 8.9 73.9 45 9.2 64.3 12 6.9 54.5 40 7.8 49.4 45 6.3 47.9 2 3.1 22.2 % of Cases Find exercises (exploring the environment of the project venue) 161 8.7 72.5 35 7.1 50.0 14 8.0 63.6 45 8.8 55.6 54 7.6 57.4 5 7.7 55.6 Trying out what was learned during the project 156 8.5 70.3 43 8.8 61.4 13 7.5 59.1 43 8.4 53.1 56 7.8 59.6 3 4.6 33.3 Using digital or online media 127 6.9 57.2 50 10.2 71.4 16 9.2 72.7 44 8.6 54.3 56 7.8 59.6 8 12.3 88.9 Individual reflection or reflection in a group 175 9.5 78.8 49 10.0 70.0 20 11.5 90.9 58 11.3 71.6 89 12.4 94.7 8 12.3 88.9 Advice to or mentoring of participants by a project leader/member of the project team 146 7.9 65.8 42 8.6 60.0 15 8.6 68.2 46 9.0 56.8 53 7.4 56.4 5 7.7 55.6 Outdoor or sports activities 189 10.3 85.1 37 7.5 52.9 9 5.2 40.9 50 9.8 61.7 47 6.6 50.0 2 3.1 22.2 Other 20 1.1 9.0 5 1.0 7.1 1 0.6 4.5 3 0.6 3.7 8 1.1 8.5 2 3.1 22.2 Total responses 1,843 100.0 830.2 491 100.0 701.4 174 100.0 790.9 512 100.0 632.1 715 100.0 760.6 65 100.0 722.2 68 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 81: Activities and situations in the project (PP) N=2,038; n=2,026 The following activities or situations occurred as part of the project I participated in: Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases Involvement in the preparation or organisation of the project 1,238 11.0 61.1 Voluntary work in another country 494 4.4 24.4 Activities and exercises which were part of the project programme (for EVS participants: including EVS training/meetings before, during and after the voluntary service abroad; including language courses, if 756 6.7 37.3 applicable) 32 Listening to presentations or input (e.g. given by experts, members of the project team etc.) Informal time/experiences with other project participants or people in the project environment 1,563 13.9 77.1 1,566 13.9 77.3 Advice or mentoring by a member of the project team 1,140 10.1 56.3 Free time for individual activities during the project 1,525 13.5 75.3 Reflecting/talking about the project experiences during or after the project Using/applying during or after the project what I had experienced/learned through the project 1,517 13.5 74.9 1,326 11.8 65.4 Other 130 1.2 6.4 Table 82: Activities and situations in the project (PL) N=503 The following activities or situations occurred as part of this project: Involvement of participants in the preparation or organisation of the project Total 11,255 100.0 555.5 Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases 384 11.8 76.3 Voluntary work of participants in another country 179 5.5 35.6 Activities and exercises with participants which were part of the project programme (for EVS participants: including EVS trainings/meetings before, during and after the voluntary service abroad; including language courses, if applicable) Participants listening to presentations or inputs (e.g. given by experts, members of the project team etc.) Informal time/experiences of participants with each other or with people in the project environment 369 11.3 73.4 362 11.1 72.0 431 13.2 85.7 Advice or mentoring of participants by a member of the project team 336 10.3 66.8 Free time for individual activities of participants during the project: 376 11.5 74.8 Participants reflecting/talking about the project experiences during or after the project Participants using/applying during or after the project what they had experienced/learned through the project 420 12.9 83.5 403 12.3 80.1 Other 7 0.2 1.4 Total 3,267 100.0 649.5 32 For this item, a relatively big discrepancy appears between PP and PL responses (see Table 82): this could be a misunderstanding by the participants, because the responses by the project leaders are more plausible. This item includes an explanation specifically for EVS participants which might have been confusing for participants in other project types who then simply skipped this item. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that participants selected most frequently this specific situation/setting as one in which they learned best (see Table 87). In the future, this should become a dependency question with a special option for EVS participants. Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 69

Table 83: Activities and situations in the project by project type (PP) N=2,038; n=2,026 (multiple responses) Involvement in the preparation or organisation of the project YE (1.1/3.1) (n=934) N % YI (1.2) (n=282) % of Cases N % YD (1.3) (n=93) % of Cases N % EVS (2.1) (n=182) % of Cases N % T&N (4.3/3.1) (n=363) % of Cases N % TCP (n=53) % of Cases N % SD (5.1) (n=119) % of Cases N % 591 11.4 63.3 227 14.9 80.5 50 10.3 53.8 100 8.5 54.9 170 8.5 46.8 19 6.8 35.8 81 13.4 68.1 Voluntary work in another country 209 4.0 22.4 41 2.7 14.5 13 2.7 14.0 138 11.7 75.8 77 3.9 21.2 6 2.1 11.3 10 1.7 8.4 Activities and exercises which were part of the project programme (for EVS participants: including EVS training/meetings before, during 304 5.9 32.5 78 5.1 27.7 29 6.0 31.2 153 12.9 84.1 143 7.2 39.4 17 6.0 32.1 32 5.3 26.9 and after the voluntary service abroad; including language courses, if applicable) Listening to presentations or input (e.g. given by experts, members of 750 14.5 80.3 183 12.0 64.9 78 16.1 83.9 114 9.6 62.6 299 15.0 82.4 44 15.7 83.0 95 15.7 79.8 the project team etc.) Informal time/experiences with other project participants or people 733 14.1 78.5 211 13.9 74.8 73 15.1 78.5 139 11.7 76.4 292 14.6 80.4 44 15.7 83.0 74 12.3 62.2 in the project environment Advice or mentoring by a member of the project team 481 9.3 51.5 171 11.3 60.6 53 10.9 57.0 121 10.2 66.5 201 10.1 55.4 37 13.2 69.8 76 12.6 63.9 Free time for individual activities during the project 755 14.6 80.8 189 12.4 67.0 62 12.8 66.7 153 12.9 84.1 270 13.5 74.4 25 8.9 47.2 71 11.8 59.7 Reflecting/talking about the project experiences during or after the 688 13.3 73.7 210 13.8 74.5 65 13.4 69.9 137 11.6 75.3 282 14.1 77.7 46 16.4 86.8 89 14.7 74.8 project Using/applying during or after the project what I had experienced/learned through the 608 11.7 65.1 188 12.4 66.7 57 11.8 61.3 112 9.5 61.5 249 12.5 68.6 42 14.9 79.2 70 11.6 58.8 project Other 69 1.3 7.4 21 1.4 7.4 5 1.0 5.4 16 1.4 8.8 12 0.6 3.3 1 0.4 1.9 6 1.0 5.0 Total responses 5,188 100.0 555.5 1,519 100.0 538.7 485 100.0 521.5 1,183 100.0 650.0 1,995 100.0 549.6 281 100.0 530.2 604 100.0 507.6 % of Cases 70 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 84: Activities and situations in the project by project type (PL) N=503 (multiple responses) Involvement of participants in the preparation or organisation of the project YE (1.1/3.1) (n=222) N % YI (1.2) (n=70) % of Cases N % YD (1.3) (n=22) % of Cases N % EVS (2.1) (n=85) % of Cases N % T&N (4.3/3.1) (n=95) % of Cases N % SD (5.1) (n=9) % of Cases N % 163 11.1 73.4 65 14.5 92.9 15 10.3 68.2 64 12.2 75.3 68 10.9 71.6 9 14.5 100.0 Voluntary work of participants in another country 62 4.2 27.9 14 3.1 20.0 9 6.2 40.9 59 11.3 69.4 35 5.6 36.8 0 0.0 0.0 Activities and exercises with participants which were part of the project programme (fore EVS participants: including EVS trainings/meetings before, during and after the 165 11.3 74.3 59 13.1 84.3 16 11.0 72.7 59 11.3 69.4 62 10.0 65.3 8 12.9 88.9 voluntary service abroad; including language courses, if applicable) Participants listening to presentations or inputs (e.g. given by experts, members of the project team etc.) 173 11.8 77.9 45 10.0 64.3 19 13.0 86.4 36 6.9 42.4 81 13.0 85.3 8 12.9 88.9 Informal time/experiences of participants with each other or with people in the project environment 195 13.3 87.8 61 13.6 87.1 20 13.7 90.9 67 12.8 78.8 80 12.9 84.2 8 12.9 88.9 Advice or mentoring of participants by a member of the project team 149 10.2 67.1 47 10.5 67.1 15 10.3 68.2 57 10.9 67.1 61 9.8 64.2 7 11.3 77.8 Free time for individual activities of participants during the project: 183 12.5 82.4 42 9.4 60.0 17 11.6 77.3 61 11.6 71.8 69 11.1 72.6 4 6.5 44.4 Participants reflecting/talking about the project experiences during or after the project 190 13.0 85.6 55 12.2 78.6 18 12.3 81.8 61 11.6 71.8 87 14.0 91.6 9 14.5 100.0 Participants using/applying during or after the project what they had experienced/learned through the project 179 12.2 80.6 60 13.4 85.7 17 11.6 77.3 60 11.5 70.6 78 12.5 82.1 9 14.5 100.0 Other 5 0.3 2.3 1 0.2 1.4 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1 0.2 1.1 0 0.0 0.0 Total responses 1,464 100.0 659.5 449 100.0 641.4 146 100.0 663.6 524 100.0 616.5 622 100.0 654.7 62 100.0 688.9 % of Cases Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 71

Table 85: Percentage of project time allocated to types of activities (PP) N=2,038; n=1,682 (mean percentages) YE YI YD EVS T&N SD (1.1/3.1) (1.2) (1.3) (2.1) (4.3/3.1) TCP (5.1) All n 783 228 74 148 309 48 92 1,682 Listening to and engaging with presentations/inputs given by experts or % 24.6 22.9 26.2 15.0 29.9 32.8 29.7 25.1 group/project leaders Planned activities and exercises which were part of the programme of the project, including its preparation; consultations with a % 39.0 42.8 42.0 38.8 37.8 35.3 37.6 39.2 project leader / member of the project team Activities which were not part of the project programme including breaks and meals (spontaneous activities; informal time with other participants and with persons who did % 23.7 20.2 21.3 30.3 20.3 18.5 20.5 22.7 not participate in the project; time for individual activities and reflections) Other activities or situations % 12.7 14.1 10.5 15.9 12.0 13.4 12.1 12.9 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 86: Percentage of project time allocated to types of activities (PL) YE YI YD EVS T&N SD N=503; n=449 (1.1/3.1) (1.2) (1.3) (2.1) (4.3/3.1) (5.1) All (mean percentages) n 199 65 17 77 84 7 449 Listening to and engaging with presentations/inputs given by experts or group/project leaders % 22.4 18.8 20.0 14.9 26.5 23.6 21.3 Planned activities and exercises which were part of the programme of the project, including its preparation; consultations with a project leader / % 49.0 57.0 46.2 48.3 47.2 52.9 49.7 member of the project team Activities which were not part of the project programme including breaks and meals (spontaneous activities; informal time with other participants and % 18.8 14.8 20.3 20.7 17.3 12.1 18.2 with persons who did not participate in the project; time for individual activities and reflections) Other activities or situations % 9.8 9.5 13.5 16.2 9.0 11.4 10.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 72 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 87: Learning of participants in the project (PP) POSTes N=2,038 (n=1,818; 212,436 possible responses; 29.3%) The left column in the table below lists a number of things that are useful in everyday life. In the top row, you will find situations that might have occurred in the course of the project in which you participated. Please indicate, what you learned best in which of these situations. situat. 1/9 When taking part in the organisation of the project situat. 2/9 During informal experiences with other people in/ around the project situat. 3/9 During voluntary work in another country situat. 4/9 In activities and exercises within the project programme I learned best In each row, please tick all situations that apply. If none apply, do not tick any. Frequencies n... to say what I think with conviction in discussions. 660 932 252 973 859 435 590 504 565 5,770 8.60 3 1,722 1 situat. 5/9 situat. 6/9 When reflecting/ talking about the experiences during or after the project When getting advice from a project team member... to communicate with people who speak another language. 595 1099 417 1,082 779 543 976 693 525 6,709 10.00 1 1,642 2 situat. 7/9 During free time for individual activities situat. 8/9 When listening to presentations or inputs situat. 9/9 When applying what I had learned in the project... to think logically and draw conclusions. 670 568 238 877 644 464 442 566 590 5,059 7.54 7 1,518 3a... to improve my learning or to have more fun when learning. 436 567 275 829 449 358 471 419 451 4,255 6.34 10 1,429 5... to plan and carry out my learning independently. 430 384 214 526 376 294 476 292 524 3,516 5.24 12 1,311 5... to cooperate in a team. 842 765 338 1,240 568 444 481 372 553 5,603 8.35 4 1,736 6a... to negotiate joint solutions when there are different viewpoints. 679 786 258 967 654 495 469 395 487 5,190 7.74 6 1,677 6a... to get along with people who have a different cultural background.... to achieve something in the interest of the community or society. 567 976 400 998 664 483 869 513 556 6,026 8.98 2 1,587 6b 682 573 336 805 509 393 440 434 674 4,846 7.22 8 1,606 6c... to discuss political topics seriously. 281 555 177 504 386 224 420 326 280 3,153 4.70 13 1,225 6c... to develop a good idea and put it into practice. 721 671 276 953 571 487 501 446 647 5,273 7.86 5 1,662 7b... to identify opportunities for my personal or professional future. 495 587 288 617 555 453 438 464 575 4,472 6.67 9 1,489 7a... to express myself creatively or artistically. 503 518 264 889 451 292 520 284 514 4,235 6.31 11 1,447 8... to produce media content on my own (printed, audio-visual, electronic). 535 239 163 616 251 221 256 308 385 2,974 4.43 14 1,281 ML TOTAL 8,096 9,220 3,896 11,876 7,716 5,586 7,349 6,016 7,326 67,081 - - 21,332 Percentage 12.07 13.74 5.81 17.70 11.50 8.33 10.96 8.97 10.92-100 - - Ranking 3 2 9 1 4 8 5 7 6 - - - - TOTAL Percentage Ranking Key competence Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 73

Table 88: Learning of participants in the project (PL) POSTes N=503; (n=460; 57,960 possible responses; 35.6%) The left column in the table below lists a number of things that are useful in everyday life. In the top row, you will find situations that might have occurred in the course of the project. Please indicate, which of the following skills the participants learned best in which of these situations. The participants learned best situat. 1/9 When taking part in the organisation of the project situat. 2/9 During informal experiences with other people in/ around the project situat. 3/9 During voluntary work in another country situat. 4/9 In activities and exercises within the project programme situat. 5/9 When reflecting/ talking about the experiences during or after the project Frequencies n... to say what they think with conviction in discussions. 195 241 80 299 258 132 170 148 170 1,693 8.20 3 453 1 situat. 6/9 When getting advice from a project team member situat. 7/9 During free time for individual activities situat. 8/9 When listening to presentations or inputs In each row, please tick all situations that apply. If none apply, do not tick any.... to communicate with people who speak another language. 171 284 120 292 230 152 252 185 158 1,844 8.93 1 417 2 situat. 9/9 When applying what I had learned in the project... to think logically and draw conclusions. 211 177 92 284 223 149 126 160 190 1,612 7.80 7 423 3a... to improve their learning or to have more fun when learning. 139 198 89 275 162 112 148 125 174 1,422 6.88 9 412 5... to plan and carry out their learning independently. 153 141 79 194 141 105 123 90 175 1,201 5.81 12 388 5... to cooperate in a team. 250 221 113 355 189 148 149 117 192 1,734 8.40 2 449 6a... to negotiate joint solutions when there are different viewpoints. 202 213 92 290 217 156 149 133 162 1,614 7.81 6 452 6a... to get along with people who have a different cultural background.... to achieve something in the interest of the community or society. 160 253 101 269 196 136 219 146 175 1,655 8.01 5 413 6b 195 177 108 265 177 126 131 121 213 1,513 7.33 8 434 6c... to discuss political topics seriously. 90 165 59 152 128 70 138 101 92 995 4.82 14 348 6c... to develop a good idea and put it into practice. 223 199 103 299 183 165 143 144 200 1,659 8.03 4 446 7b... to identify opportunities for their personal or professional future. 138 170 91 205 203 153 131 129 171 1,391 6.73 10 412 7a... to express themselves creatively or artistically. 130 172 92 285 145 79 145 97 171 1,316 6.37 11 400 8... to produce media content on their own (printed, audio-visual, electronic). 180 80 74 222 78 73 67 94 137 1,005 4.87 13 390 ML TOTAL 2,437 2,691 1,293 3,686 2,530 1,756 2,091 1,790 2,380 20,654 - - 5,837 Percentage 11.80 13.03 6.26 17.85 12.25 8.50 10.12 8.67 11.52-100 - - Ranking 4 2 9 1 3 8 6 7 5 - - - - TOTAL Percentage Ranking Key competences 74 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 89: Involvement of project leaders in project activities by project type (PL) N=503 (multiple responses) Designing the project (content, methodology, methods, programme etc.) Cooperating with colleagues from my organisation when preparing, implementing and evaluating the project Cooperating with youth workers/leaders from partners in other countries when preparing, implementing and evaluating the project Organisational or administrative tasks (preparing the application; organising travel, accommodation etc.; preparing the project report; financial administration; dissemination of results etc.) YE (1.1/3.1) (n=222) N % YI (1.2) (n=70) % of Cases N % YD (1.3) (n=22) % of Cases N % EVS (2.1) (n=85) % of Cases N % T&N (4.3/3.1) (n=95) % of Cases N % SD (5.1) (n=9) % of Cases N % 140 10.3 63.1 65 14.3 92.9 14 10.0 63.6 65 14.2 76.5 58 10.4 61.1 9 15.8 100.0 181 13.3 81.5 67 14.7 95.7 19 13.6 86.4 68 14.9 80.0 68 12.2 71.6 8 14.0 88.9 174 12.8 78.4 27 5.9 38.6 18 12.9 81.8 54 11.8 63.5 72 12.9 75.8 2 3.5 22.2 141 10.3 63.5 62 13.6 88.6 16 11.4 72.7 71 15.5 83.5 59 10.6 62.1 8 14.0 88.9 Implementing the project activities for/with the participants 181 13.3 81.5 66 14.5 94.3 19 13.6 86.4 44 9.6 51.8 70 12.6 73.7 9 15.8 100.0 Informal time/experiences with participants, the project team or with other people in the project environment Receiving information or advice from other persons or sources (including online media or printed material) Reflecting/talking about my experiences during or after the project 195 14.3 87.8 56 12.3 80.0 21 15.0 95.5 54 11.8 63.5 76 13.7 80.0 7 12.3 77.8 135 9.9 60.8 48 10.5 68.6 13 9.3 59.1 41 9.0 48.2 64 11.5 67.4 5 8.8 55.6 200 14.7 90.1 63 13.8 90.0 19 13.6 86.4 57 12.5 67.1 82 14.7 86.3 9 15.8 100.0 Other 17 1.2 7.7 2 0.4 2.9 1 0.7 4.5 3 0.7 3.5 7 1.3 7.4 0 0.0 0.0 Total responses 1,364 100.0 614.4 456 100.0 651.4 140 100.0 636.4 457 100.0 537.6 556 100.0 585.3 57 100.0 633.3 % of Cases Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 75

Table 90: Involvement of project leaders in project activities (PL) N=503 I was directly involved in (multiple responses) Designing the project (content, methodology, methods, programme etc.) Cooperating with colleagues from my organisation when preparing, implementing and evaluating the project Cooperating with youth workers/leaders from partners in other countries when preparing, implementing or evaluating the project Organisational or administrative tasks (preparing the application; organising travel, accommodation etc.; preparing the project report; financial administration; dissemination of results etc.) Responses N Percentage Percentage of Cases 351 11.6 69.8 411 13.6 81.7 347 11.5 69.0 357 11.8 71.0 Implementing the project activities for/with the participants 389 12.8 77.3 Informal time/experiences with participants, the project team or with other people in the project environment Receiving information or advice from other persons or sources (including online media or printed material) 409 13.5 81.3 306 10.1 60.8 Reflecting/talking about my experiences during or after the project 430 14.2 85.5 Other 30 1.0 6.0 Total 3,030 100.0 602.4 Table 91: Involvement of project leaders in project activities by role/function in the project (PL) My role/function in this project was N=503 I was directly involved in the following project activities: Please choose all that apply: Designing the project (content, methodology, methods, programme etc.) Cooperating with youth workers/leaders from partners in other countries Cooperating with youth workers/leaders from partners in other countries Organisational or administrative tasks Implementing the project activities for/with the participants Informal time/experiences with participants, the project team or with other people in the project environment Receiving information or advice from other persons or sources Reflecting/talking about my experiences during or after the project Other primarily educational (sociopedagogic). primarily organisational. equally educational and organisational. all C 37 98 177 312 % 56.1 75.4 80.5 70.7 C 46 109 196 351 % 69.7 83.8 89.1 80.9 C 42 85 165 292 % 63.6 65.4 75.0 68.0 C 25 105 184 314 % 37.9 80.8 83.6 67.4 C 53 100 179 332 % 80.3 76.9 81.4 79.5 C 49 97 192 338 % 74.2 74.6 87.3 78.7 C 34 67 155 256 % 51.5 51.5 70.5 57.8 C 58 104 199 361 % 87.9 80.0 90.5 86.1 C 4 4 14 22 % 6.1 3.1 6.4 5.2 Answers C 348 769 1,461 2,556 Cases n 66 130 220 416 Percentage of Cases % 527.3 591.5 664.1 594.4 76 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Table 92: Learning of project leaders in the project (PL) POSTes N=503 (n=418; 46,816 possible responses) You too might have developed skills while being engaged in this project. The left column in the table below lists a number of things that are useful in everyday life. In the top row, you will find situations that might have occurred in the course of the project in which you participated. Please indicate, what you learned best in which of these situations. situat. 1/8 When designing the project situat. 2/8 When cooperating with colleagues from my organisation situat. 3/8 When cooperating with youth workers from other countries I learned best In each row, please tick all situations that apply. If none apply, do not tick any. Frequencies n... to say what I think with conviction in discussions. 235 259 242 214 269 269 157 223 1,868 9.71 1 419 1... to communicate with people who speak another language. 163 132 250 190 257 226 156 189 1,563 8.12 4 383 2... to think logically and draw conclusions. 236 217 189 206 235 148 149 200 1,580 8.21 3 402 3a... to improve my learning or to have more fun when learning. 128 139 169 120 228 161 115 153 1,213 6.30 11 372 5... to plan and carry out my learning independently. 166 128 115 160 160 113 109 149 1,100 5.72 12 341 5... to cooperate in a team. 227 258 234 210 271 174 135 170 1,679 8.73 2 413 6a... to negotiate joint solutions when there are different viewpoints. 200 215 204 189 244 167 131 164 1,514 7.87 6 416 6a... to get along with people who have a different cultural background. 161 131 227 146 252 227 148 169 1,461 7.59 7 393 6b... to achieve something in the interest of the community or society. 192 191 179 153 241 163 128 179 1,426 7.41 8 399 6c... to discuss political topics seriously. 79 115 111 70 130 149 78 120 852 4.43 14 311 6c... to develop a good idea and put it into practice. 246 202 181 174 258 167 128 173 1,529 7.95 5 415 7b... to identify opportunities for my personal or professional future. 152 149 150 139 177 143 129 180 1,219 6.34 10 371 7a... to express myself creatively or artistically. 140 132 132 232 232 141 92 138 1,239 6.44 9 359 8... to produce media content on my own (printed, audio-visual, electronic). 156 124 91 148 184 84 82 127 996 5.18 13 353 ML TOTAL 2,481 2,392 2,474 2,351 3,138 2,332 1,737 2,334 19,239 - - 5,347 Percentage 12.90 12.43 12.86 12.22 16.31 12.12 9.03 12.13-100 - - Ranking 2 4 3 5 1 7 8 6 - - - - situat. 4/8 During organisational/administrative tasks situat. 5/8 When implementing project activities for/with participants situat. 6/8 During informal experiences with other people in/around the project situat. 7/8 When getting information or advice from other persons/sources situat. 8/8 When reflecting/talking about my experiences during or after the project SUM Percentage Ranking Key competences Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 77

5.6 Learning in everyday life Table 93: Learning of participants in everyday life/1 (PP) N=2,038 In your opinion, where did you learn something in the past twelve months? Please tick one answer for each of the situations listed below. (multiple responses) At school, college or university Attending training courses/sessions in your workplace Attending training courses/sessions elsewhere As training placement in a company or as part of an exchange programme Following a programme combining periods of study with workplace-based learning Working (learning on the job) At the workplace (talking to colleagues during breaks, reading newspapers, etc.) Involvement in social or political work (Trade Union, political party, church or charity work, other associations, etc.) Being at home (watching TV, doing housework, hobbies, looking after the family, etc.) Travelling, studying, working or living abroad Getting together with other people (other people s homes, pubs, etc.) Using local libraries, learning resource centres, arts workshops nearby Leisure activities A period of voluntary, social or military service Total RAY Total Yes No Don`t know This situation does not apply to me Total Count 1,278 113 44 314 1,749 % 73.1 6.5 2.5 18.0 100.0 Count 878 196 54 593 1,721 % 51.0 11.4 3.1 34.5 100.0 Count 1,180 143 57 344 1,724 % 68.4 8.3 3.3 20.0 100.0 Count 852 220 53 570 1,695 % 50.3 13.0 3.1 33.6 100.0 Count 497 254 101 801 1,653 % 30.1 15.4 6.1 48.5 100.0 Count 1,135 136 45 417 1,733 % 65.5 7.8 2.6 24.1 100.0 Count 1,075 148 101 393 1,717 % 62.6 8.6 5.9 22.9 100.0 Count 991 278 83 365 1,717 % 57.7 16.2 4.8 21.3 100.0 Count 1,266 220 171 58 1,715 % 73.8 12.8 10.0 3.4 100.0 Count 1,392 114 49 175 1,730 % 80.5 6.6 2.8 10.1 100.0 Count 1,515 83 109 26 1,733 % 87.4 4.8 6.3 1.5 100.0 Count 1,147 270 129 162 1,708 % 67.2 15.8 7.6 9.5 100.0 Count 1,402 126 153 36 1,717 % 81.7 7.3 8.9 2.1 100.0 Count 841 258 77 526 1,702 % 49.4 15.2 4.5 30.9 100.0 Count 9,939 1,660 807 3,425 15,831 % 62.8 10.5 5.1 21.6 100.0 % 80.1 13.4 6.5-100.0 Count 15,449 2,559 1,226 4,780 24,014 % 64.3 10.7 5.1 19.9 100.0 % 80.3 13.3 6.4-100.0 78 Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Youth in Action

Interim Transnational Analysis 2012 Figure 3: Learning of participants in everyday life/1 comparison with Eurobarometer 59 (PP) 33 In your opinion, where did you learning something in the past twelve months? Percentages of positive responses (excluding responses 'this situation does not apply to me') At school, college or university Attending training courses/sessions in your Attending training courses/sessions elsewhere As training placement in a company or as part of Following a programme combining periods of Working (learning on the job) At the workplace (talking to colleagues during Involvement in social or political work (Trade Being at home (watching TV, doing housework, Travelling, studying, working or living abroad Getting together with other people (other Using local libraries, learning resource centres, Leisure activities A period of voluntary, social or military service 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0 EB 59 (n=7.073) RAY NFL MAY 2012 PP (n=445) 33 Limited to age group 15 to 40 and to EU member states in 2003 (= EU 15) which were also countries of residence of YiA participants answering this question (all EU member states in 2003 except for Luxembourg). Helmut Fennes, Susanne Gadinger, Wolfgang Hagleitner, Katharina Lunardon 79